HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 1995.05.11 - 24550z
Miscellaneous Resolution #95140 mAY 11, 1995
BY: PLANNING AND BUILDING COMMITTEE, CHARLES PALMER, CHAIRPERSON
IN RE: CERTIFICATION OF AVAILABLE DISPOSAL CAPACITY
ACT 641 SOLID WASTES
To the Oakland County Board of Commissioners
WHEREAS, Oakland County's 1994 Amendments to the 1990 Solid
Waste Management Plan Update requires that annually, on or before
June 30, the Board demonstrate and certify available remaining
disposal capacity for its Act 641 solid wastes; and
WHEREAS, a finding that sufficient capacity is available (more
than 66 months) equates to a moratorium on the use of the interim
siting mechanism contained in the 1994 Amendments for the siting of
additional landfill capacity in the County; and
WHEREAS, Act 641 as amended, concludes that failure to adopt a
required annual certification is equivalent to a finding that less
than a sufficient amount of capacity is available and the interim
siting mechanism will then be operative on the first day of the
following January; and
WHEREAS, a total review has been conducted of the current Act
641 waste stream generated within the county, the current volume
reduction efforts being achieved by the County's residents and
businesses, an analysis of the impact of Michigan's 1995 Yard Waste
Ban from landfills and incinerators, current inter-county flow
arrangements and an analysis of the available remaining disposal
capacity both within the County and within willing nearby counties;
and
WHEREAS, the current analysis shows clearly that disposal
capacity is available for disposal of the County's Act 641 waste
stream into the year 2005 as shown on the Exhibit attached.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Oakland County Board of
Commissioners hereby certifies that sufficient disposal capacity
exists so that the interim siting mechanism for the siting of
additional landfill capacity within the County as contained within
the 1994 Amendments to the 1990 Solid Waste Management Plan Update
will not become operational until at least through the end of 1996.
Should current projections hold with capacity available into the
year 2005, the mechanism will not be placed into operation until
approximately January 1, 2000.
Chairperson, on behalf of the Planning and Building Committee,
I move adoption of the foregoing resolution.
ING 5,E7g1T1 LDING COMMITTEE
-41— Year ending on December 31, 2005
8
6
A A A A A A A A •
4 Millions of Gateyards 2
Demonstrated
Vol. Reduction
15.00%
Wayne-Oakland
Factor
2.00
Eagle Valley
Factor
2.00
Genesee Co I Arbor Hills
Exports @ 0.5?
0.025
Wayne Co.
Gateyards
2.00
Year 2000 Excess
Disposal Opportunities
wo YW Ban w YW Ban
Year During Which
Insufficient Capacity Occurs
wo YW Ban w YW Ban
Extra?
0.25
20.00% Imports as a % of available in-county capacrty 50.68% 57.28% 2005 2005
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
- Year Ending on December 31, -
Principal Variables
Oakland County
Disposal Capacity
Availability
Spring, 1995
• Needs without Volume Reduction
• Needs at Constant VR% Projection
.A Needs incl. 1995 Yard Waste Ban
• Type It Needs wo CDD & ISW
Net In-County Capacity after Imports
• Net Total Available Capacity
; Landfill Operating Factors
1.0 = 2,500 Gtyds / Working Day
1.4 = 3,500 Gtyds / Working Day 1.7 = 4,250 Gtyds / Working Day
2.0 = 5,000 Gtyds / Working Day 2.4 = 6,000 Gtyds / Working Day
(2,500 x 286 = 715,000 Gtyds / Year)
(3,500 x 286 = 1,001,000 Gtyds /Year
RJS, PE
12:44
04/27/95
RE: PLANNING & BUILDING COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM g
DOCUMENT TITLED "SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE-
DEMONSTRATION OF AVAILABLE DISPOSAL CAPACITY/MAY, 1995"
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
OFFICES.
1990
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
PLAN UPDATE
As Amended
On June 9, 1994
Oakland County, Michigan
Demonstration of
Available Disposal Capacity
May, 1995
L. Brooks Patterson, County Executive
Fran Amos
Dan Devine, Jr.
Nancy Dingeldey
Sue Ann Douglas
John P. Garfield
JoAnne Holbert
Donna R. Huntoon
Gilda Z. Jacobs
Donald W. Jensen
Eugene Kaczmar
Jeff Kingzett
Thomas A. Law
John P. McCulloch
Ruel E. McPherson
David L. Moffitt
Lawrence A. Obrecht
Charles E. Palmer
Lawrence R. Pernick
Dennis N. Powers
Nancy L. Quarles
Kay Schmid
Shelley G. Taub
Donn L. Wolf
Nancy Bates
Timothy Carpenter, P.E.
Alan Druschitz
Sandra Dyl
Dawn Furlong
Michael Izzo
Member Vacancy
Robert Leininger
Yale Levin
Robert Line
Samuel Seabright, P.E.
Thomas Waffen P.E.
Pete Connors
Claudia Filler
Robert Justin
Patrick Kresnak
Rich Pirrotta
Gerald Schlaf
George Schutte, P.E.
Al Shay
Ted Starbuck
Jerry Strang
Daryl Toby
Mike Tyler
Lawrence Wesson
Oakland County Board of Commissioners
Larry Crake, Chairperson
Ruth Johnson, Vice-Chairperson
Oakland County Executive
L. Brooks Patterson
Designated Planning Agency Staff
Roger J. Smith, P.E.
Solid Waste Planning Committee
Ardath Regan, Chairperson
Dennis Powers, Vice-Chairperson
Alternates
For Nancy Bates For Dennis Powers
Thomas Biasell Eugene Kaczmar
SWPC Advisory Members
Preface
Preface
On June 9, 1994, the Oakland County Board of Commissioners adopted
a series of amendments to the County's 1990 Solid Waste Management
Plan Update. These amendments provided (in part) that annually,
on or before June 30, that the Board shall certify and demonstrate
remaining available disposal capacity for the County's Act 641
solid wastes.
The amendment documents noted that "Because there are so many
variables involved in this rather complex system. a strong
argument can be made that this entire situation should annually be
examined and recertified. Such a reflective review will insure
that a "crisis" is not suddenly encountered." The amendments
further noted that the following items should be examined annually
during the course of the certification process.
Waste stream characteristics
In-county disposal facilities
Inter-county flows of waste
Current volume reduction efforts
Other factors impacting disposal needs
Finally, the amendments provided that if a finding of insufficient
capacity was made, that the County's Interim Siting Mechanism
(ISM) would become operative which would most likely result in the
siting of additional disposal capacity (landfills) for at least
the first application received which met the ISM's objective
criteria. The ISM would remain operative until once again the
County had access to a sufficient amount of disposal capacity.
Simultaneously with the adoption of Oakland County's amendments,
the Governor signed new legislation revising Act 641 which was
promoted by the County and which established similar annual
requirements for certification - if a county did not have access
to at least 10 years of capacity at the time of approval of its
Plan Update. If, during the course of any required annual
certification, a county could not show that it had access to at
least 66 months of disposal capacity, the county's ISM would then
become operative at the next January 1st. Proponents of a
landfill which met all criteria contained in the ISM would be
granted a finding of consistency and appropriate construction and
operation permits issued.
Should a county fail to conduct a required annual certification by
June 30, this would be equivalent to a finding that less than a
sufficient amount of capacity is available and the ISM would then
be operative on the first day of the following January. The
Michigan Department of Natural Resources retains final decision
authority to approve or disapprove capacity certifications and to
determine consistency of a proposed disposal area with the solid
waste management plan.
Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Title
Preface
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
List of Exhibits
1 'Employment and Population - 1994
2 Industrial Special Wastes
3 Oakland County's Original 1994 Waste Stream Estimates
4 The National Data
5 Revised Estimates of the Act 641 Waste Stream
6 Altered Inter-county Flow Arrangements
7 Inter-state and Inter-country Waste Flows
8 Demonstration of Available Disposal Capacity
Appendix
Special Thanks
Cautionary Notes to Other Governmental Units
Selected portions of the 1994 Plan Update Amendments -
Certification of Available Disposal Capacity
Selected Portions of Act 641 (P.A. of 1978 as Amended)
What If...?
Work Sheets from Chapters 4 and 5
List of References
Chapter 1 - Employment and Population - 1994
Chapter 1
Employment and Population - 1994
Oakland County's waste stream estimating technique is principally based on
data relating to population, to employment by employment type and by place of
work, and to waste generation estimates that were developed from data
collected in the late 1970s and the early 1980s. Oakland County's 1990 Plan
Update and the database contained in the 1994 Plan Update Amendments were
based on such population and employment estimates and projections prepared by
the Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments (Regional Development
Forecast, Ver 84 and Ver 89 respectively).
In the course of preparation of this document, staff sought the assistance of
the Michigan Employment Security Commission, Financial and Management
Services, Covered Employment Statistics & Analysis Section, to obtain
estimates of current (1994) employment by employment type and by place of work
data. Such information is updated continuously by MESC on a sampling basis.
However, it is not directly available for Oakland County since the County's
employment is reported as a part of regional or marketplace data. However,
with the assistance of MESC, a logic was developed by Oakland County to
distribute the regional estimates of current employment to individual counties
based on comparison of the most recent sampling data with final employer
reports to MESC and which are approximately one and one-half years old. Once
the technique was developed, it was relatively easy to prepare current
estimates on all 83 of Michigan's counties. These are shown on the exhibit
following.
Population data on a historical basis has been obtained from the US Census
Bureau. On a current basis, however, population on a county-by-county basis
as prepared by an independent provider, is difficult to come by. Therefore,
the trends exhibited by the 1980 and 1990 census data were straight-line
projected to 1994. The resulting values were further adjusted to match the
most recent US Census Bureau estimates for Michigan (1993-94) based on the
proportion that each county was to the state-wide totals. Again, the results
are displayed on the exhibit following.
This basic material allows past waste stream estimates to be adjusted to
current conditions and allows state-wide county-by-county estimates to be
prepared - all premised on material prepared by independent providers.
Source Reports: Employment Estimates: Oakland County staff report to
MDNR (Smith to Phillips) dated December 13, 1994 as
revised on January 5, 1995.
Population Estimates: Oakland County staff report to
MDNR (Smith to Phillips) dated January 5, 1995.
Chapter 1 - Page 1
Chapter 2 - Industrial Special Wastes
Chapter 2
Industrial Special Wastes
Act 641 wastes are comprised of three principal components - municipal solid
waste (MSW), construction and demolition debris (CDD) and industrial special
wastes (ISW). Within the MSW component there are several other breakdowns of
the waste stream including single family residential, multi-family
residential, commercial and industrial. The industrial component of MSW
(generally comprised of industrial housekeeping wastes such as packaging,
cafeteria and washroom wastes, and office wastes) is exclusive of industrial
process.wastes (such as foundry sands which are described as ISW) that might
also be disposed of in Michigan's Type II landfills, but that can be disposed
of in Type III landfills.
The one primary component of the Act 641 stream that has caused the most
difficulty for Oakland County solid waste planners has been, and remains to
be, industrial special wastes (ISW). This category not only contains the
industrial process wastes previously described, but includes municipal sludges
and street sweepings among others.
The several areas of concern about ISW involved the age of the generation
studies; Oakland County's consultants expressed concern about the values used
in the County's 1990 Plan Update (see 1990 Plan Update footnote below); a
concern that these wastes were being double counted (high generation factors
within MSW as well as high factors for ISW alone); a general lack of interest
by industry and the private sector landfill owners in establishing Type III
landfills in the County (such facilities only being located well to the south
in Wayne and Monroe Counties); and others.
For example, the footnote below was contained in the Database Chapter on Page
3-30 of the County's 1990 Plan Update. This document was essentially
completed by the spring of 1989 and reflects the thinking at that point in
time.
25/ The industrial special waste generation rates used to estimate
this quantity are based on a 1980 survey (Oakland County,
Michigan, Solid Waste Management Planning, Phase 1A, Camp Dresser
& McKee) and may be high because these rates do not reflect
recycling or source reduction practices that companies may have
initiated recently. Representative industries were contacted to
verify these rates, but the results received could not
substantially confirm or refute the 1980 generation rates. A
detailed survey of Oakland County industries should be conducted
to estimate up-to-date industrial special waste generation rates
and to identify the disposal sites accepting this waste.
For example, the generation rate used for the industrial portion of MSW (see
description above) in the 1990 Plan Update was 10.61 pounds per employee per
day and the estimated amount of ISW generated added an additional 14.26 pounds
per employee per day for a grand total of 24.87 pounds per employee per day.
Did this represent massive over counting?
For example, at the present time, although many "industries" are located in
Oakland County including numerous Fortune 500 companies, a large majority of
these operations are headquarter type facilities with most employees in the
office worker category. General office type employees are estimated to
generate only 5.75 pounds per employee per day. Relatively few "heavy
industrial" operations exist within the County.
Chapter 2 - Page 1
Chapter 3 - Original 1994 Waste Stream Estimates
Chapter 3
Oakland County's Original 1994 Waste Stream Estimates
Based upon the newly available projections of employment by place of work for
1994 and upon the 1994 population estimates on a county-by-county basis (see
Chapter 1), Oakland County's waste generation factors as utilized in the 1994
Plan Amendments were applied to create new county-by-county municipal solid
waste (MSW) estimates for 1994. The MSW estimate along with construction and
demolition debris (CDD) waste stream estimates spread on a per capita basis
and industrial special waste (ISW) waste stream estimates (see Chapter 2 for
an explanation of ISW generation and spread methodology used) were complied
and presented on a state-wide basis, see Exhibit 3.2. This Exhibit contains
all variables utilized in the estimating formulas.
To gain an early look at current landfill requirements, a basic assumption was
made that all categories of the Act 641 waste stream were experiencing a 15%
reduction through source reduction, reuse, composting or recycling as compared
to the base year. Although these early calculations of bankyard requirements
accounted for stream reduction because of waste-to-energy and incineration
projects and calculated the bankyard requirements for the resulting ash, no
attempt was made to calculate additional bankyards required for the process
residues from composting and recycling operations.
It should be noted here that the bankyard requirements displayed are based on
modern, large, high-volume, high-rise landfill facilities that do or should
achieve relatively high future compaction rates in the completed facilities.
In those areas of the state where smaller operations (both in terms of
ultimate size and daily volume) exist, it is likely that lower compaction
rates will occur. Thus some caution should be used when attempting to
directly use this information in cases and conditions other than as described.
Nonetheless, this approach provides a single look, state-wide, at landfill
needs based upon primary data (population and employment) that is provided by
independent sources.
Exhibits 3.3 and 3.4 display this same information in greater detail,
specifically delineating the several components of the MSW stream including
the residential, commercial and industrial components. This information is
shown two ways. First at 0% reduction and secondly at 15%. Again, some care
has to be taken when viewing the information contained in these Exhibits,
particularly the gateyard estimates. Local circumstances may vary the final
results from those shown (see the Chapter 5 work sheets in the Appendix which
display the gateyard assumptions made in Oakland County).
In order to verify the results achieved, the MSW estimates (or components
thereof) were graphically displayed in Exhibits 3.5 and 3.6. The first
compares the 83 counties on a per capita basis sorting the information on all
employed persons per capita. It can be seen that the waste generated in
individual counties is directly related to the number of persons employed (by
place of work) on a per capita basis. The second compares the estimates
contained in the 1990 Plan Updates v the new estimates for 1994. This graphic
is sorted on daily MSW generation, ascending. It can be seen that a fairly
close match exists to the estimates prepared by the individual counties. This
graphic also displays the pounds per capita per day noted from this analysis
against that same factor as used in 54 different 1990 Plan Updates.
This information was widely distributed throughout Michigan in January, 1994.
Chapter 3 - Page 1
2
<c•
Olt 3F.ANS2it16-NRGBA .,....- '3§;7 1-472 iEFEMPIR5F41 9nAUFFLifFRENUIEFFEFE.1 2 !FRERRiffU g E5WWEEE°0E:^MTV!
vN v v 0 N Nv v M
PiggPiggPigggggViggPiggggPiggggggg6g5gg5ggggPiggoMggPiggggggrggggPigggPiggggggPlgg 000009009000000000009000000000090000m06469666900e09600909000090900090900000900900ei
6-:-.22:t6.2rPJAVV2222g.2z2VMS2314.T.222:1%7183g:1-22122.-4“,.2V2NN74;:2422;28Pagg.VV3V426.2.2 ''''' 225.22
t:2272 2g2r2,:15r222M2 62PPP;;NZ8F;AgP,Ww;F-232W.iVP!.„!!;;A:32222X28'AggS2P22:1-!!222,t;I27..22:;-,24:=VtVz,
'';'Ls'°"'jg ...."^:j 6 ,1 4 L.I'g m 'et:.'gr.;r:4 trilO u4 4 6 4"..t ^itr=°n...:4-:"^".'i ;.—"."46 "."4.- PS 0 0
M n n S
4 ei 2 2 ei
NRS1227440g 28272:!2:;g22tr-Ag8E2w,A2nTr.T24W2 2§2FiZitg2RGA,Z8t;z2A2WSIAIL2,2RA2228n
AtgAAAMPAKI
2 'gerA,11222 4.24,T44,1,:0:42:t22 g o ei4 -
•
oo
2
"'-'grl!;n g2:2 2
• f
..r22g28V,148;.”2.A.
tt•j..±:2,1gg22276 E§ „z 233 2g
.2 0 8888888888.2"N 2
0000000000M
ss
P__
CN0OOn0 g.
xg le -
8888882882UU 2; 'ciciOcicidocicie4P .e 3282 v5 ddriti 2.
222Ag2tAN
e. ---4 sd
-" -4"-
nV 1,1 V
01.-PMPq-,.04 g
24rANA"222,9Zigt:22,Trz2N.M:2237222;7,22226'22.87N22ri:4-2242:2222.214N2.2:=2"g.22.2.:Ig.
"
•4! ci
P.
PO
grgV.22:AVg27,TrAgS71g22.7.2MSGAR9ZVS7IVIM-g gV27,?:=ggPAggN2VS2.74.X.Sg7Lgggg:2328;;;SgSqng;;Vrg:21;;gr2Mg1=9 g2 sigciPOO ,eiiOOdoiciWiriciOOOO*POmOOO.4"OOOOp.O4eicimi"4.64A4cirieic648.-,,POO446*PoiciOci4e.:64.64g4'6PP,tcip c v .v
vcs cf.s
7.N22 2 G6-.222=12222ZR:=PPg22 n.16-22:1 12 :2 °"2"2'2 -'2 °V-2'3 °2"--"8 -'3""N'"'"""°""'2 --N"TS'SrgIg2V2V 2 V:int-- _
..... ovo,trZovisp:pcieiggstrip...somso.lovrasno" pNO A vv00 M1 4 0v .Ni N PO v S vP, P0 vNelvv v pro vg 0N V .Nv og ... z ., v M FOVV
Vr-R3N2rA722.t2:--22722,2I,12g."a8VMTAe28'47.2N2;W428222A22VASA622g22222g2n12:22:12N2RP.ARRA222r:g22'.-2RWS2
VAZAIN:=g2VgZ6-NPgI,=-,2f2 2222,12N822;;SEV"'-°^-^"""'22 ^."2"'""°"°2 -•"'''"2"°12 °-'°—""V"A'A'N'P 2 21;Ar.N6-22g
N v vNOW vv
• .e No
a 2
i o
0
2 P.i O N
e V i
c . III v g Ag 1 2 I gl 8 gi:: .1 i Lg g 'o.$71 4 1Rw R Ii gi .
2..%201. 2 5 8ptEk .:°.Ecf4i421"z og 28 E4 : ti = .4 5 00§2 42 3 EFF'Os i °2 2 1 i811 42= ;
WI I4a.!:!!!(=LLIIn g" 400 1!"/"Ln i gig gi l gniagh wtl q ...... ...„,.., ........ ,:m00(.1000xxx 0 . YYY .... , . 2 222227 0 WoMo go2 ;33 2
..,,,P.A.TAP.P.A2,7,P2AAVANA7VV:14VV42:2V,12.7,22.%Ng2;22S226-:2,2g .. Prz,Tg2z1423 °
" go. theca ggillp 0,-;8ft5gccigotur3
SSW,5005 0 .7 ,o
sZ.T.:ggWargn.sr,
6
• KAB Franklin, 1994 MSW (4.34 #1 Capita / Day) Cr
All Employed Persons / Capita -0-
/ "Industrial" Employed Persons / Capita
oft
„ye
.4(
Residential Base (2.9 # / Capita / Day)
2
ava'
"lee." tit*
08
06 Persons Employed (by Place of Work) / Capita 04
02
0
03/30/95 10:08 2.9 5.75 10.61 Statewide MSW 29.917.19 tpd Based on Query 1 Factors:
Municipal Solid Waste and Employment by Place of Work - 19941
Michigan's 83 Counties I
8
Notes: Based on Employment for 1st 10 months of 1994 (Expanded MESC 94 "3").
Based on straight-line projection of 80 and 90 Census population data to 1994
• plus a proportionate share of growth to match 9.496,000 1994 total.
MSW calculated without volume reduction efforts as compared to 1990.
Construction and Demolition Debris and Industrial Special Wastes not included.
Michigan Average (6.30 #1 Capita / Day)
#1 Capita / Day Pounds of Municipal Solid Waste / Capita / Day 4 # / Capita / Day at Average
"Industrial" Employment Levels
0-0-*
Employment
Additions
0 1_111111111 i 111 1 1111111111111111 11111111111(I L.) 1111±111111 111111_1_111111 11111
1 57 44 26 80 60 58 79 10 71 5 74 18 72 38 12 47 59 20 9 16 30 27 87 32 55 25 46 31 37 82 52 7 11 73 13 69 49 39 41 63 28
42 43 8 14 19 45 62 23 34 68 35 64 78 6 65 3 40 77 81 54 2 78 51 29 38 21 75 17 48 4 50 53 15 70 68 22 56 83 24 81 33
- Michigan's 83 Counties -
Oak/and County Solid Waste Planning
January 22. 1995 RJS, PE
Chapter 4 - The National Data
Chapter 4
The National Data
A major problem facing most solid waste planning agencies in Michigan (and
elsewhere) is a lack of current data across the entire Act 641 waste stream -
including the residential, commercial, and industrial segments of municipal
solid waste (MSW) as well as construction & demolition debris (CDD) and
industrial special wastes (ISW).
The data problem involves current generation rates, current volume reduction
rates (4nc1ucling source reduction & reuse, composting and recycling) and
current disposal rates. In areas that essentially operate free-market across
several counties, a related problem is what and how much is disposed of where
and what was the source of this material? In areas exposed to out-of-state or
out-of-country imports, this lack of precise data makes managing the resource
(landfill capacity) extremely difficult.
Although some solid waste agencies have absolute control of data on the
materials their facilities receive, generally, only one segment of the overall
waste stream (residential) is involved. Even within this limited setting, few
agencies have access to tonnage or weight information for all components of
the waste stream that they do handle.1
These problems were highlighted by nearly every speaker at a Data Tracking
Forum sponsored by the Michigan Recycling Coalition in January, 1995. In
brief summary, several speakers focused on the following points.
Michigan law does not presently require waste stream reporting by all
solid waste facility operators, in a standardized format, to a single
reporting point for compilation and analysis as is common in other
states. As a result, useful data on the waste stream is sadly lacking.
This impacts (or should impact) policy development, law making,
regulation, measurement of goal achievement, and daily operational
issues. The lack of data makes it difficult to logically determine or
advocate new policies and programs and makes it extremely difficult to
respond to opposition. In an ideal world. the data issue should not
even become a point of discussion.
Some Forum speakers concluded with the thought that although there is no
definitive proof, Michigan appears to be performing generally as well as
other states in the volume reduction categories.
Given this acknowledged lack of hard, timely information in Michigan, it is
therefore appropriate to stand back and attempt to gain a larger perspective
on waste management issues. Two recent national reports on the municipal
solid waste stream allow that perspective to be gained.
The national information and data which follows was drawn from two sources,
both prepared by Franklin Associates, Ltd. for project sponsors. The first
document, "The Role of Recycling in Integrated Solid Waste Management to the
Year 2000" was prepared for Keep America Beautiful, Inc. and is dated
September, 1994. The second document, "Characterization of Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States: 1994 Update" was prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste
Division, Office of Solid Waste and is dated November 15, 1994. This second
work represents part of a continuing series of examinations which has roots in
the early 1960s.
Chapter 4 - Page 1
Chapter 4 - The National Data
The KAB study provided additional insight into the waste stream that is not
available locally. It projected that portion of the municipal solid waste
stream that is individually generated, recovered and disposed of from the
residential sector as well as the commercial & industrial sector. For the
first time, we have a national overview of the Recovery percentages achieved
from each. These findings are broadly combined with the US EPA report
findings in Exhibit 4.7. KAB study details are shown in Exhibits 4.12 & 4.13.
Both national studies predict that 30% total Recovery is reasonably achievable
by the Year 2000. Each indicated that this estimate included (outside of the
values given) an assumption that yard trimming generation would be reduced
through SR & R by 32.3% from the Year 1993 to the Year 2000. In states or
localities where yard trimmings were banned from landfills or incinerators,
the amount diverted from Disposal, would be considerably greater.
Converting the Mater.ial for use in Michigan and in Oakland County: Two
questions immediately spring to mind when examining these national estimates
and considering their potential use in analyzing the Michigan waste stream.
1. Are the general proportions of the Residential to Commercial /
Industrial waste streams (without yard trimmings) consistent with the
Michigan waste stream?
2. Is the "All Yard Trimmings" category proportional and/or consistent
with the Michigan waste stream?
The approach used in this analysis involved straight-lining the KAB ratio of
residential wastes (without yard wastes) to commercial / industrial wastes
(without yard wastes) back to 1990. 1990 Census data was then obtained both
on the United States and for Michigan on employment and population. Oakland
County's generation factors were then applied to this data, adjustments were
made for yard wastes as observed from Oakland County's perspective, and the
resulting ratios compared to that found by KAB. Dramatic differences were
observed.
It was found however, that by altering the generation factors used by Oakland
County, that a very close fit could be obtained with the KAB observations.
These adjustments married well with other observations on the Oakland County
generation factors. As noted in the Oakland County 1994 Plan Amendments
(Chapter 4), Oakland has long been uncomfortable with its current estimating
method in terms of the residential factors used (understated) and the combined
commercial and industrial factors used (overstated) although no specific
generation studies were available to allow appropriate adjustments to be made.
At the same time, there is a great deal of comfort with the overall answers
produced when examining large regional areas and the state as a whole. The
adjustments noted below are required in the generation factors to produce the
close fit to KAB data (details are shown in the Appendix).
Population
Commercial Employees
Industrial Employees
Total # / Cap. / Day - 1990
Generation Factors
(# / Unit / Day)
Original Revised
2.90 3.42
5.75 5.75
10.61 6.89
6.16 6.16 <
Based upon 1990
Census data and
holding this
factor constant.
The net result of these adjustments produces the yard waste findings shown
below. The 1994 results for Michigan and Oakland County are based on 20% yard
waste generation within the residential waste stream and 2% within the
commercial and industrial streams (all prior to SR & R). They are further
based on 10% SR & R and upon recovery of 35% of the remainder which is placed
Chapter 4 - Page 3
Chapter 4 - The National Data
adopted, mid to late 1980s, should the base recovery rates noted earlier be
subtracted from current efforts? Has the dramatic increase in recovery since
the mid-80s principally been in the residential sector?
Another indicator that points in a similar direction is that most of the
generation studies that form the basis for the generation factors widely used
in Michigan were conducted from the late 1970s to the mid 1980s. This being
the case, wouldn't the recovery percentages noted during this time period have
already been included in the generation factors resulting? Again, shouldn't
the base recovery rates noted earlier be subtracted from current efforts?
Recommendations for VP. % to be used to calculate short-term landfill needs:
It is recommended that Oakland County continue to use the 15% recovery
assumptions made in the 1994 Plan Update Amendments. Further, it is
recommended that a 4.81% additional recovery be projected by 1996 as a direct
result of the Yard Waste Ban (see Appendix for details of development of the
4.81%). In the spirit of the Act 641 amendments adopted in 1994, no
additional recovery should be assumed when calculating short-term landfill
needs - even though the general public ethic on source reduction, reuse,
composting and recycling is gradually increasing as additional municipalities
provide comprehensive services and as the commercial and industrial sectors
increase their recovery efforts.
Special Note: The recommendation for the additional recovery
percentage caused by changes in the yard waste stream applies only
to the municipal solid waste (MSW) stream. Obviously, it does not
apply to the construction and demolition debris (CDD) and
industrial special waste (ISW) segments of the overall Act 641
waste stream. Thus, the overall decrease in the amount of wastes
disposed of will not fully equate to this additional amount.
1996
Stream Base Yard Waste 1996
Component Assumption Adjustment Total
MSW 15% 4.81% 19.81%
CDD 15% 0% 15%
ISW 15% 0% 15%
Total 15% 3.85% 18.85%
Chapter Footnotes:
I See previous reports which compare Michigan's generation rates v US
EPA data and which analyzes volume data v weight data in calculating
landfill needs.
2 It should be noted that problems are encountered with the percentage
figures when comparing the KAB and the Oakland County approaches. This
all has to do with Oakland's inclusion of SR & R within the total and
KAB's approach which does not attempt to estimate SR & R. See Appendix.
Chapter 4 - Page 5
Yard
Trim. ,zA
25.2%
Residential
14.9%
11.3%
Do the new 94 data
points suggest these
interim chart lines?
Commercial and
Industrial 7 6.7% .1%
40% Percentage Recovery 20%
30%
Recovery of Municipal Solid Waste
Combining the US EPA and KAB National Reports
Combining the US EPA and KAB reports allows
the MSW recovery percentage to be broken into
three primary components:
1 - Yard Trimmings,
2 - Residential, and
3 - Commercial & Industrial.
10%
The Year 2000 values represent a 30%
recovery scenario in both the US EPA
(11-15-94) and the KAB (9-94) reports.
Note: The national estimates and
projections are exclusive of source
reduction and reuse (SR & R) efforts.
• US EPA-All
A EPA wo Yard Trim.
A KAB Comm & Ind
0% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1_1 1 1 1 1 I I I I_ I I_ 1_ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
- Year Ending on December 31, -
04/26/95 OCSWP
From
Table 33
2000
37,480
4,340
5,135
1,575
920
7,630
1,975
660
480
1,680
Neg.
54,245
520
10,655
Neg.
11,175
65,420
#1 Capita / Day 0.18 0.23 0.35 0.72 0.81 0.89 0.96 1.30
2000
42.0%
31.0%
36.1%
46.0%
65.9%
40.1%
8.8%
8.7% 7.7%
10.5%
Neg.
30.4%
3.7%
48.0%
Neg.
28.3%
30.0%
Characterization of Municipal Solid Wastain_the United States: 1_994 Update
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - 11/15/94
Table 2
Recovery* of Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 to 1993
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation of each material)
Thousands of Tons
1960 1970 1980 1990 1991 1992 1993
Materials
Paper and Paperboard 5,360 7,420 11,850 20,250 22,510 24,480 26,460
Glass 100 160 750 2,630 2,560 2,890 3,010
Metals
Ferrous 50 150 370 1,710 2,320 2,780 3,370
Aluminum Neg. 10 340 1,010 1,040 1,110 1,050
Other Plonferrous Neg. 330 540 730 740 720 780
Total Metals • 50 490 1,250 3,450 4,100 4,610 5,200
Plastics Neg. Neg. 20 370 450 600 680
Rubber and Leather 330 250 130 330 350 360 370
Textiles 10 10 20 580 820 800 720
Wood Neg. Neg. Neg. 390 810 1,070 1,320
Other** Neg. 300 500 680 690 670 730
Total Materials in Products 5,850 8,630 14,520 28,680 32,290 35,480 38,490
Other Wastes
Food Wastes Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg.
Yard Trimmings Neg. Neg. Neg. 4,200 5,000 6,000 6,500
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg.
Total Other Wastes Neg. Neg. Neg. 4,200 5,000 6,000 6,500
Total MSW Recovered - Weight 5,850 8,630 14,520 32,880 37,290 41,480 44,990
Percent of Generation of Each Material
1960 1970 1980 1990 1991 1992 1993
Materials
Paper and Paperboard 17.9% 16.8% 21.7% 27.9% 31.7% 32.9% 34.0%
Glass 1.5% 1.3% 5.0% 20.0% 20.1% 22.0% 22.0%
Metals
Ferrous 0.5% 1.2% 3.2% 13.7% 18.5% 21.6% 26.1%
Aluminum Neg. 1.2% 19.3% 35.3% 34.9% 38.1% 35.4%
Other Nonferrous Neg. 49.3% 48.2% 66.4% 64.3% 62.1% 62.9%
Total Metals 0.5% 3.5% 8.6% 21.0% 24.6% 27.2% 30.3%
Plastics Neg. Neg. 0.3% 2.2% 2.6% 3.2% 3.5%
Rubber and Leather 16.3% 7.7% 3.0% 5.6% 6.0% 6.0% 5.9%
Textiles 0.6% 0.5% 0.8% 9.0% 13.4% 12.5% 11.7%
Wood Neg. Neg. Neg. 3.2% 6.4% 8.3% 9.6%
Other** Neg. 37.5% 17.4% 21.6% 21.2% 20.4% 22.1%
Total Materials in Products 10.8% 10.3% 13.4% 19.5% 22.2% 23.4% 24.5%
Other Wastes
Food Wastes Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg.
Yard Trimmings Neg. Neg. Neg. 12.0% 14.3% 17.1% 19.8%
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg.
Total Other Wastes Neg. Neg. Neg. 8.2% 9.8% 11.7% 13.1%
Total MSW Recovered - % 6.7% 7.1% 9.6% 16.6% 19.0% 20.4% 21.7%
* Recovery of postconsumer wastes for recycling and composting; does not include converting / fabrication scrap.
** Recovery of electrolytes in batteries; probably not recycled.
Neg. = Negligible.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Table 33 values based on 30% recovery scenario.
Note: These National estimates and projections are exclusive of source reduction and reuse (SR & R) efforts.
03/28/95
OCSVVP
4.9
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste In the United States: 1994 Update
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - 11/15/94
Derived from Tables 1-3 and Table 36
Per Capita Generation, Materials Recovery, Combustion
and Discards of Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 to 2000
(in pounds per person per day, population in thousands)
1960 1970 1980 1990 1991 1992 1993 2000
Generation 2.66 3.27 3.65 4.35 4.27 4.36 4.40 4.32
Recovery for recycling & composting
Composting Neg. Neg. Neg. 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.14 0.21
Recycling 0.18 0,23 0.35 0,63 0.70 2.7E 9.82 1.09
Sub-total 0.18 0.23 0.35 0.72 0.81 0.89 0.96 1.30
Discards after recovery 2.49 3.04 3.30 3.63 3.46 3.47 3.44 3.02
Combustion 0.82 0.67 0.33 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.67
Discards to landfill,
other disposal 1.67 2.37 2.97 2.93 2.76 2.77 2.74 2.35
Population (thousands) 180,671 203,984 227,255 249,399 252,235 255,072 257,908 276,241
Notes from Table 36:
The year 2000 scenario assumes substantial reduction of yard trimmings generation, a 30% recovery scenario,
and virtually no increase in net combustion of MSW.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Population figures from Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Note: These National estimates and projections are exclusive of source reduction and reuse (SR & R) efforts.
Derivation Notes:
A. Generation represents Table 1 totals adjusted to the indicated population.
B. Recovery... represents Table 2 values and totals adjusted to the indicated population.
C. Discards after... represents Table 3 totals adjusted to the indicated population.
D. Combustion represents Table 36 values, interpolated where necessary.
E. Discards to... represents ( +C - D). 03/28/95
F. Population represents Table 36 values, interpolated where necessary. OCSVVP
2,220 220 10% 0.10% 8,600 39% 399%
2%
Total selected products / materials
Percent of Totals
DTHER COMPOSTAE
Percent of Totals
OTHER COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS
Percent of Totals
OTHER MAIERIALS
Percent of Totals
153,500 71.23%
71%
26,500 12.30%
12%
7,000 3.25%
3%
28,500 13.23%
13%
32,370 43% 15.02% 63,575 41% 29 50%
100%
DME
78,465
68%
31,205 40% 14.48% 75,035
75%
16,000 10,500
14%
4,200
4%
2,800
11%
3%
17,000
15%
11,500
12%
From Keep America Beautiful / Franklin Associates, Ltd. Recycling Report - September, 1994
Table K-8
A 30 PERCENT RECOVERY SCENARIO FOR 2000
(ALLOCATED BY POTENTIAL RECOVERY LOCATION)
(In thousand tons)
04/26/95
08:31
RJS.PE
Commercial / Industrial Total Recovery
Recovey Recovey
Percent as a % of as a % of
Generation Recovery Recovery Tpt. Stream Tons Percent Tot Stream
2,250
27,200
6,785
2,230
6,890
240
300
360
2,475
600
600
2,700
380
75
2,450
2,560
2,770
687
63
11,200
72,815
73%
675
60
3 400
32,150
740
17,395
3,300
730
1,035
35
30
20
485
30
180
1,800
195
5
740
375
920
33%
64%
49%
33%
15%
15%
10%
6%
20%
5%
30%
67%
51%
7%
30%
15%
33%
98%
95%
30%
44% 14 92%
0.34%
8.07%
1.53%
0.34%
0.48%
0.02%
0.01%
0.01%
023%
001%
0.08%
0.84%
0 09%
0 00%
0.34%
0.17%
0.43%
0.31%
0.03%
1.58%
Municipal Solid Waste Categories
SELECTED PRODUCTS / MATERIALS
Newspapers
Corrugated containers
Office papers
Magazines, similar products
Mixed papers
PET bottles
HOPE bottles
Other rigid plastic containers
Plastic film
Other plastics
Steel cans
Major appliances (ferrous metals only)
Aluminum beverage cans
Other aluminum packaging
Glass containers
Textiles (clothing, linens)
Tires (rubber only)
Automotive batteries
Lead
Polypropylene casings
Wood pallets
Subtotal products
Percent of Totals
Yard Trimmings
Percent of Totals
Total US Percent
Generation of MSW
15,250 7.08%
30,220 14.02%
7,785 3.61%
6,370 2.96%
19,690 9.14%
1,200 0.56%
1,500 0.70%
1,800 0.84%
4,500 209%
1,200 056%
3,000 1.39%
3,000 1.39%
1,900 0.88%
370 0.17%
12,000 5.57%
6,400 2.97%
3,080 1.43%
765 0.35%
70 0.03%
11,200 5.20%
131,300 60.93%
61%
22,200 10.301
10%
Residential
Recovey
Percent as a % of
Generation Recovery Recovery Tot. Stream
8,110 62%
615 20%
205 21%
2,070 50%
2,965 23%
415 43%
320 27%
160 11%
205 10%
30 5%
1,630 68%
0 0%
1,155 76%
50 17%
4,240 44%
575 15%
0 0%
78 75 96% 0.03%
7 5 71% 0.00%
0 0 0% 0.00%
58,485 22,825 39% 10.59%
51%
19,980 8,380 42% 3.89%
17%
8,850 58% 411%
18,010 60% 836%
3,505 45% 1.63%
2,800 44% 1.30%
4,000 20% 1.86%
450 38% 0.21%
350 23% O. 16%
180 10% 0.08%
690 15% 032%
60 5% 0.03%
1,810 60% 0.84%
1,800 60% 0.84%
1,350 71% 063%
55 15% 0.03%
4,980 42% 2.31%
950 15% 0.44%
920 30% 0.43%
750 98% 0 35%
65 93% 003%
3,400 30% 1 58%
54,975 42% 25 51%
13,000
3,020
1,000
4,140
12,800
960
1,200
1,440
2,025
600
2,400
300
1,520
295
9,550
3,840
310
3.76%
0.29%
0.10%
0.96%
1.38%
0.19%
0.15%
0.07%
0.10%
0.01%
0.76%
0.00%
0.5,4%
0.02%
1.97%
0.27%
0.00%
Total MSW 215,500 100% 115,665 31,205 27% 14.48% 99,835 32,370 32% 15.02% 63,575 30% 29 50%
46.33% Percent of total MSW
Percent of total recovered materials
Notes from the original KAB Franklin documents:
Recovery tonnages and percentages we 'best estimates" and illustrative in nature. Some numbers have been rounded.
Residential MSW includes multi-family homes.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
29.50%
50.92%
Other Notes: Estimates are after "source reduction and reuse" efforts.
Generation = material "placed at the curb" for disposal or recovery
From Table K-2, year 2000 US population is estimated at 276,241,000.
This yields an overall MSW #1 capita / day generation rate of... 4.2746
53.67%
49.08%
50%
41.7%
SR&R
2%
The probable impact of generally
increasing recycling rates and of
Michigan's 1995 Yard Waste Ban.
Since Michigan's basic generation studies
were completed during this period, should
the noted 1980 Recovery % (9.6%) be
subtracted from current observations?
29.5%3/5% yard
Wastes
6.7%
2.0% Residential
17.6%
1980 Recovery Level Commercial
&_InduStrial
10% Percentage Recovery 30%
20%
1996 4.
6.08% Diff.
— 1994
9.6%
o o o oe0000 0-
6.7% 7.1%
18.0% 0.3%
13-61— 16.0%
15.2%
16.8%
14.2%
04/14/95 OCSVVP
Elements of Recovery - Municipal Solid Waste
Combination of US EPA & KAB Reports as Modified by Oakland County Factors.
40%
Note: The national estimates and
projections are exclusive of source
reduction and reuse (SR & R) efforts.
Oakland County's Goal levels for
SR&R are included herein.
Determining the Impact of
Michigan's 1995 Yard Waste Ban
Oakland County Employment Ratios - 1994
• US EPA All
is Adj. KAB Comm. / Ind.
6 + Adj. KAB Residential
* + Oakland Yard Wastes
e + Oakland's SR&R Goals
Without considering
SR&R, the combined
impact of the 1995 Yard
Waste Ban and
generally increasing
Recovery percentages
seem to be 6.08% from
1994 to 1996. 1.69% due
to general increases
and 4.39% due to the ban.
ookl I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1.1 I I_ 1 I I I II I LI_ I II I I I I I I I
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
- Year Ending on December 31, -
UI
Chapter 5 - Revised Estimates of the Act 641 Waste Stream
Chapter 5
Revised Estimates of the Act 641 Waste Stream
and
Oakland County's Future Landfill Requirements
Based upon the revised generation factors highlighted in Chapter 4, the prior
83 county estimates of the 1994 Act 641 waste stream were revised. These are
shown on the Exhibits following, again with Exhibit 5.2 showing overall
estimates, 5.3 showing stream details at 0% reduction and 5.4 showing details
at 15% reduction, 5.5 comparing all counties on an employment per capita
basis, .and 5 ;6 comparing the revised 1994 estimates against the 1990 Plan
Update values from 54 county plans.
This broad brush material continues to be based on a 15% volume reduction
assumption across the board in all Act 641 waste stream categories.
In order to determine Oakland County's landfill requirements over the short-
term, the 1994 waste stream estimates were projected into the future. In the
spirit of restrictions contained in the 1994 amendments to Act 641, a series
of conservative future assumptions were made. These included ...
a continuation of usage on the base 15% volume reduction assumption
contained in the 1994 Plan Amendments - without future growth;
adjustments to this base assumption for the impact of Michigan's 1995
yard waste ban from landfills and incinerators. In Oakland County, this
meant a reduction in the 15% base assumption for 1994 in the amount of
0.71% and an increase of 4.10% by 1996. Out-state, if the Oakland
County yard waste experience were to hold in the other counties, the
1994 adjustment would be a negative 0.29% and an increase of 5.49% by
1996. These differences essentially reflect the varying percentages of
residential wastes to the totals;
modest process residues were factored in for composting and recycling
activities within the MSW stream; and
all CDD and ISW wastes were assumed to be disposed of in Type II
landfills.
For each future year, the waste stream was projected at 0% reduction on a tons
per day, gateyards per day, gateyards per year, and on a bankyards per year
basis. At the noted reduction percentages, it was projected on a gateyards
and bankyards per year basis. This information (at the noted reduction
percentages) is shown in summary form on Exhibit 5.7 and graphically in
Exhibit 5.8. Details of this projection are contained in the Appendix.
Chapter 5 - Page 1
Solid Waste Database
Oakland County, Michigan
Col County
Aicona
2 Alger
3 Megan
4 Alpena
5 Antrim
8 Aren't
7 Barrage
8 Barry
9 Bay
10 Benzle
11 Berrien
12 Branch
13 Calhoun
14 Cass
15 Charlevoix la Cheboygan
17 Chippewa
18 Clare
19 Clinton
20 Crawford
21 Deka
22 Dickinson
23 Eaton
24 Emmet
25 Genesee
26 Gladwin
27 Gogebic
28 Grand Traverse
29 Grotto*
30 Hillsdale
31 Houghton
32 Huron
33 Ingham
34 Ionia
35 lows
36 Iron
37 Isabella
38 Jackson
19 Kalamazoo
40 Kalkaska
41 Kent
42 Kerweenaw
43 Lake
44 Lapeer
45 Leelanau
48 Lenawee
47 Livingston
48 Luca
49 Mackinac
50 Macomb
51 Manistee
52 Marquette
53 Mason
54 Mecosta
55 Menominee
58 Midland
57 MIssaukee
58 Monroe
59 Montcalm
60 Montmorency
81 Muskegon
62 Newaygo
63 Oakland
64 Oceans
65 Nanny
66 Ontonagon
67 Osceola
68 Oa:oda
69 Otsego
70 Ottawa
71 MTOSOU8 1510
72 Roscommon
73 Saginaw
74 St. Clair
75 St. Joseph
78 Sanitac
77 Schoch:rah
78 Shiawassee
79 Tuscola
80 Van Buren
81 Washtenaw
82 Wayne
83 Wexford
84 Michigan
85 WUPPDR
86 CUPPDRC
87 EUPRPDC
88 Entire UP
89 NMCOG
90 ECMPOR-1
91 ECIAPOR-2
92 RJS up lower
93 DNR up lower
94 WMSRDC
95 Tr-County
96 DNR Dist 3
97 RJS lower
98 SEMCOG
99 5.5 Counties
03/31/95
14:34
Tons / Day Remaining for Disposal After Volume Reduction Efforts - 1994
De/ads of Mumospal Solid WIS10 VR Oakland
P.m Cu.... ,n4 roW MOW COO iSW Tote VMM WTI Gamm•n's
342 5.75 a as els Less pius 0 70 0.87 7.87 .. stewed. Factors
000% 0.00% 000% 0.00% WTE Ash 000% 0.00% 000% da ReRRWRIR Reductkm
17 98 122 1.85 23.06 168 0.92 2766 0.00% 78
1547 6.11 415 25.74 117 133 32.24 0.00% 87
164.13 39 28 6750 270.90 33.59 68.45 370.95 -0.00% 956
52.19 2718 ¶328 9136 10.88 9.52 113.56 -000% 312
33.11 10.89 7.28 51.28 6.78 4.76 62.80 -0.00% 173
26.20 10.18 5.19 41.58 5.36 2.86 49.58 0.00% 138
13.51 7.51 3.80 24.81 2.76 2.87 30.25 -0.00% 83
90.30 20.97 17.43 128.71 18.48 12.18 159.37 0.00% 437
189.20 8469 37 83 311.52 38.73 31.81 381 88 0.00% 1,048
21.98 7.30 4.22 3149 4.50 2.82 40.81 0.00% 113
274.61 139.49 95.01 509.10 56.21 91.26 858.57 0.00% 1,744
73.31 25.52 19 78 118.62 15.01 15.38 149.00 0.00% 403
233.31 130.27 77 46 441.03 47.75 7166 562.84 0.00% 1,503
86.29 19.16 19 87 125.32 17.86 15.83 158.81 0.00% 429
38.54 18.08 14.32 70.94 7.89 12.73 91.55 0.00% 243
37.85 17.90 6.58 6233 7.75 2.77 72.85 0.00% 206
64.25 39.45 8.89 112.40 13.15 3.55 12110 0.00% 368
44.32 17.67 6.93 68.92 9.07 4.55 82.54 0.00% 230
102.36 30.76 18.77 149.90 2095 8.55 179.40 0.00% 501
23.34 11.17 3.68 38.19 4.78 2.76 45.73 0.00% 127
65.09 31.76 16.35 11120 1132 13.34 139.36 -0.00% 381
47.84 27.73 1661 92.18 9.79 1263 114.61 0.00% 311
165.19 60.32 23 90 24941 33.81 12.82 296.04 -0.00% 830
45.11 34.85 12.35 92.30 923 7.43 108.98 0.00% 304
736.96 349.35 205.42 1.29173 150.84 20511 1,647.68 0.00% 4,411
39.55 10.27 8.34 58.18 8.09 3.98 88.23 0.00% 189
30.35 14.91 5.26 50.52 6.21 3.88 60.61 0.00% 163
118.66 103.39 38.06 260.12 2429 24.13 Mau 0.00% 857
66.98 30.90 18.31 114.18 1171 12.19 140.08 0.00% 384
76.71 23.12 29.78 12911 15.70 27.57 17219 0.00% 452
60.14 36,18 929 10511 12.31 3.58 121.50 0.00% 346
59.92 23.47 2086. 104.24 12.26 13.96 130.47 0.00% 353
496.23 441.50 148.10 1,085.83 101.57 109.20 1.298.60 0.00% 3,585
103.11 31.50 2123 157,83 21.10 16.04 194.98 0.00% 534
54.00 19.02 10.59 83.61 1105 8.06 102.72 0.00% 282
22.66 9.50 3.87 35.83 4.84 129 42.46 0.00% 119
95.65 53.70 2239 189.74 1258 8.74 198.05 -0.00% 558
260.02 12513 63.36 449.31 (170.00) 45.05 5122 58.67 43428 -22.34% 1,054
397.42 284.82 140.18 802.42 81.34 127.90 1,011.88 0.00% 2,716
25.32 7.19 9.47 11.98 5.18 199 51.16 0.00% 141
912.43 659.84 359.28 1,931.59 (51000) 135.15 186.76 33845 2,081.95 -15.26% 5,180
2.78 0.61 129 168 0.57 0.29 4.54 0.00% 13
15.58 4.58 1.25 21.41 3.19 0.55 25.15 0.00% 71
133.73 28.66 26.83 18921 27.37 20.91 237.39 0.00% 646
30.59 9.70 5.45 45.75 6.26 1.01 5102 0.00% 151
16164 74.04 5028 284.95 32.88 44.04 381.87 0.00% 971
212.45 87.17 4444 34416 43.48 30.82 418.15 -0.00% 1.154
9.43 5.46 1.76 16.85 1.93 0.68 19.47 0.00% SS
18.97 14.74 323 38.14 3.88 0.44 41.27 0.00% 119
1,267.36 567.04 481.74 2,301.14 (349.44) 92.60 259.40 478.65 2,730.35 -8.48% 7,011
35.87 15.30 922 80.39 7.34 6.48 74,19 0.00% 203
121.41 72.66 23.57 217.35 24.85 345 245.95 0.00% 707
43.97 20.97 15.78 80.72 9.00 1153 103.25 0.00% 276
65.32 29.81 12.39 107.53 13.37 7.20 128.10 -100% 368
42.56 17.08 14.88 74.54 3.71 13.94 97.19 0.00% 257
133.41 70.33 80.95 284.70 27 31 54.51 346.52 0.00% 911
22.88 400 4.68 31.34 4.84 2.28 38.26 0.00% 106
232.32 70.01 47.82 350.15 47.55 41.40 439.10 0.00% 1,193
96.40 33.08 3028 159.76 1973. 25.73 205.27 0.00% 548
16.60 4.84 3.12 24.58 3.40 1.77 29.72 0M% 82
278.31 112.28 69.11 45170 5826 88.80 583.47 -0.00% 1,569
68.93 21.25 13.81 103.99 14.11 8.89 126.79 0.00% 350
1,940.35 1,83727 581.76 4.139.38 (48.88) 12.95 397.15 488.07 4.9138.68 -0.71% 13,637
39.48 11.85 10.59 61.92 8.08 4.88 74.66 0.00% 207
34.15 13.22 6.89 54.26 6.99 4.53 65.78 0.00% 182
14.74 604 740 28.18 3.02 2.22 33.42 0.00% 93
3519 10.33 18.05 62.37 7.37 14.21 63.95 0.00% 218
14.37 4.78 317 2221 2.94 2.21 27.36 0.00% 75
33.39 2082. 10.40 64.82 6.83 6.32 77.77 0.00% 215
348.89 154.87 153.54 657.10 71.41 146.37 874.88 000% 2281
2321 7.87 4.97 36.45 4.83 1.11 42.39 -0.00% 120
3187 1123 4.57 5717 7.55 1.99 67.21 0.00% 190
355.48 205.70 103.78 667.96 ' 7317 95.77 837.10 0.00% 2,260
258.75 9173 51.95 40142 52.96 44.50 49818 0.00% 1,361
104.74 37.72 4A 53 186.99 21.44 4148 251.91 0.00% 554
69.05 21.44 28.53 117.02 14.13 17.89 149.04 -0.00% 400
14.29 6.03 3.20 23.52 2.93 1.78 28.22 0.00% 78
120.75 43.61 24.41 18877 24.72 19.07 232.55 0.00% 618
95.79 30.21 1997. 144.98 1911 12.18 175.77 100% 488
124.18 3022 28.93 18163 2548 2002 229.12 -0.00% 625
506.26 390.78 132.08 1,079.10 103.62 164.05 1.346.77 0.00% 3,632
3,525.88 1,955.24 334.02 8.315.14 (2,504.44) 683.68 721.27 836.21 6.032.26 -23.36% 14,495
46.86 28.48 1548 94.82 9.59 19.55 123.97 0.00% 328
16,238.18 9,013.56 4.833.01 29.88472 (3,582.75) 949.43 3.323.60 4,147.58 34,722.58 -7.05% 91,243
144.18 74.74 29.51 246.43 0.01 0.00- 29.51 14.84 202.78 -0.00% 821
137.43 80.98 38.58 237.00 0.00 0.00 28.13 32.38 297.51 0.00% 604
92.65 59.86 1329 185.99 0.00 0.00 18.96 4.87 189.83 0.00% 541
543.53 295.77 121.98 981.26 0.00 0.00 111.25 6118 1,140.68 0.00% 3,184
219.32 98.48 46.96 364.77 0.00 0.00 44.89 27.37 437.03 0.00% 1215
190.77 6812 33.57 293.26 010 0.00 3905 21 22 35153 0.00% 982
184.84 51.65 45.51 26200 0.00 0.00 33.74 30.07 325.81 -0.00% 888
96868 480.12 245.06 1,873.85 0.00 0.00 19827 166.38 2,03910 0.00% 5,609
1,970.16 94916 534.19 3,45412 0.00 0.00 40325 401.54 4,258.81 0.00% 11,627
317.79 124,13 79.70 521.63 0.00 0.00 85.05 71.46 65113 -0.00% 1,777
763.79 532.58 138.77 1,485.14 0.00 010 156,33 130.57 1,772.04 0.00% 4,917
13,724.46 7,768.13 3.97686 25.489.45 (3,582.75) 949.43 2,809.10 3,677.86 29,323.09 -824% 75,431
14,725.96 8,257.67 4,265.99 27,249.61 (3,582.75) 949.43 3.014.09 3,912.52 31542.90 -7.71% 82.450
7,943.36 4.78823 2,188.61 14,930.39 (2902.75) 769.23 1,525.83 2081.50 16,504.20 -11.45% 42,483
7.820.77 4,512.17 2,191.74 14224.88 (2,902.75) 769.23 1,800.74 2,098.16 1139006 -11.52% 42,134
Note: Resdue trom compost operations and recyclable matenae processing plants are also disposal of but are not
In/Jut/6d herein, say 5%. At a VR rate 01 15%, this would equate to an additional 0.75%. statewide.
5.3
0
02
04
06
08 Persons Employed (by Place of Work) / Capita 8
Notes: Based on Employment for 1st 10 months of 1994 (Expanded MESC 94 "3").
Based on straight-line projection of 80 and 90 Census population data to 1994
plus a proportionate share of growth to match 9,496,000 1994 total.
MSW calculated without volume reduction efforts as compared to 1990.
Construction and Demolition Debris and Industrial Special Wastes not included.
Michigan Average (6.29 # / Capita / Day)
# / Capita / Day at Average
"Industrial" Employment Levels
Residential Base (3.42 #1 Capital Day)
All Employed Persons! Capita
KAB Franklin, 1994 MSW (4.34 #1 Capital Day)
2
"Industrial" Employed Persons / Capita
0 11111111111111111111111111111
* / Capita / Day
4 Pounds of Municipal Solid Waste / Capita / Day 03/30195 09:59 3.42 5.75 6.89 Statewide MSW = 29,884.72 tpd Based on Query 1 Factors: MESC6.VVK4
[Municipal Solid Waste and Employment by Place of Work - 1994
Michigan's 83 Counties
1 57 44 28 80 60 58 79 10 71 5 74 18 72 38 12 47 59 20 9 16 30 27 87 32 55 25 46 31 37 82 52 7 11 73 13 89 49 39 41 63 28
42 43 8 14 19 45 62 23 34 88 35 64 78 6 65 3 40 77 81 54 2 76 51 29 38 21 75 17 48 4 50 53 15 70 68 22 58 83 24 81 33
- Michigan's 83 Counties -
Oakland County Solid Waste Planning
March 29. 1995 RJS, PE
Generalized Volume
Ileshalsa.Anumloa
msw 15.00%
COD 15.00%
law 15.00%
94 Yard Waste Adjust. 3.29%
94 YW SR & R Adjust. 1.04%
96 Beyond YW Adjust. 7.32%
96 & Beyond YVV SR R Adjust. 1.83%
Composting Residue
MSW Recycling Residue
COD Recycling Residue
(SW Recycling Residue
5.00%
5.00%
7.50%
7.50%
Oakland County's Currunulatiye Bankyard Requirements - 1994 and Beyond Oakland County's Annual Bankyard Requirements
COD & (SW
Assumptions
Adjusted
2,232,318 97.16%
4,430,418
6,593,430 94.75%
8,774,079
10,972,366
13,188,291
15,421,853 93.19%
17,673,052
19,941,890
22,228,364
24,532,477
26,854,227 92.49%
29,193,614
31,550,639
33,925,302
36,317,603
38,727,540 92.04%
Adjusted to
Modified for New Population
94 Plan Yard Waste & Employment
Amendment Ban Data _
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994 2,297,496 100% 2,311,971 100.63% 2,391,126 104.08%
1995 4,617,180 4,596,373 4,745,832
1996 6,959,051 100% 6,852,116 98.46% 7,063,291 101.50%
1997 9,323,111 9,129,115 9,396,268
1998 11,709,358 11,427,372 11,744,799
1999 14,117,793 13,746,886 14,108,922
2000 16,548,415 100% 16,087,657 97.22% 16,488,670 99.64%
2001 19,001,226 18,449,685 18,884,076
2002 21,476,224 20,832,969 21,295,173
2003 23,973,410 23,237,511 23,721,990
2004 26,492,784 25,663,310 26,164,557
2005 29,034,345 100% 28,110,366 9682% 28,622,902 98.58%
2006 31,598,094 30,578,679 31,097,052
2007 34,184,031 33,068,249 33,587,033
2008 36,792,156 35,579,076 36,092,869
2009 39,422,469 38,111,160 38,614,585
2010 42,074,969 100% 40,664,501 96.65% 41,152,203 97.81%
Adjusted to
Modified for New Population COD & (SW
94 Plan Yard Waste & Employment Assumptions
Amendment Ban
2,582,476 2,582,476 2,544,620 2,372,696 1990
2,514,180 2,514,180 2,508,920 2,339,689 1991
2,444,017 2,444,017 2,468,886 2,302,748 1992
2,371,989 2,371,989 2,424,483 2,261,847 1993
2,297,496 100% 2,311,971 100.63% 2,391,126 104.08% 2,232,318 97.16% 1994
2,319,684 2,284,402 2,354,707 2,198,100 1995
2,341,872 100% 2,255,743 96.32% 2,317,459 98.96% 2,163,012 92.36% 1996
2,364,059 2,277,000 2,332,976 2,180,649 1997
2,386,247 2,298,257 2,348,531 2,198,287 1998
2,408,435 2,319,514 2,364,122 2,215,925 1999
2,430,623 100% 2,340,771 96.30% 2,379,748 97.91% 2,233,562 91.89% 2000
2,452,810 2,362,028 2,395,406 2,251,200 2001
2,474,998 2,383,285 2,411,097 2,268,837 2002
2,497,186 2,404,542 2,426,817 2,286,475 2003
2,519,374 2,425,799 2,442,567 2,304,112 2004
2,541,561 100% 2,447,056 96.28% 2,458,345 96.73% 2,321,750 91.35% 2005
2,563,749 2,468,313 2,474,150 2,339,388 2006
2,585,937 2,489,570 2,489,980 2,357,025 2007
2,608,125 2,510,827 2,505,836 2,374,663 2008
2,630,313 2,532,084 2,521,716 2,392,300 2009
2,652,500 100% 2,553,341 96.26% 2,537,618 95.67% 2,409,938 90.86% 2010
Year
Oakland County's Annual Gateyard Requirement&
(for export to Gtyds6.wk4)
Adjusted to
Modified for New Population COD & (SW
94 Plan Yard Waste 8. Employment Assumptions
Year Amendment Ban Data Adjusted Year
1990 4,738,941 4,738,944 4,725,910 4,553,987 1990
1991 4,615,839 4,615,839 4,659,614 4,490,383 1991
1992 4,489,082 4,489,082 4,585,299 4,419,181 1992
1993 4,358,674 4,358,674 4,502,989 4,340,353 1993
1994 4,201,078 100% 4,231,551 100.73% 4,443,370 105.77% 4,284,563 101.99% 1994
1995 4,244,190 4,170,804 4,371,300 4,214,693 1995
1996 4,287,303 100% 4,107,781 95.81% 4,297,533 100.24% 4,143,085 96.64% 1996
1997 4,330,415 4,148,954 4,329,255 4,176,928 1997
1998 4,373,528 4,190,126 4,361,016 4,210,771 1998
1999 4,416,641 4.231,299 4,392,812 4.244,614 1999
2000 4,459,753 100% 4,272.472 95.80% 4,424,643 99.21% 4,278,458 95.93% 2000
2001 4,502,866 4,313,644 4,456,507 4,312,301 2001
2002 4,545,978 4,354,817 4,488,403 4,346,144 2002
2003 4,589,091 4,395,989 4,520,329 4.379,987 2003
2004 4,632,204 4,437,162 4,552,285 4,413,830 2004
2005 4,675,316 100% 4,478,335 95.79% 4,584,268 98.05% 4,447,673 95.13% 2005
2006 4,718,429 4,519,507 4,616,278 4,481,516 2006
2007 4,761,541 4,560,680 4,648,314 4,515,359 2007
2008 4,804,654 4,601,853 4,680,375 4,549,202 2008
2009 4,847,767 4,643,025 4,712,461 4,583,045 2009
2010 4,890,879 100% 4,684,198 95.77% 4,744,569 97.01% 4,616,888 94.40% 2010
04/03/95
10.39
RJS, PE
Protect I .1AiK4
Ui
Chapter 6 - Altered Inter-County Flow Arrangements
Chapter 6
Altered Inter-County Flow Arrangements
Since preparation and adoption of the 1994 Plan Update Amendments, one
significant change has occurred in Inter-County Flow Arrangements which
positively impacts on disposal capacity availability for Oakland County waste
generators. This change involves the level of permissive imports into Wayne
County from Oakland County. While the change does not significantly increase
the length of time over which the County has access to a sufficient amount of
disposal capacity, it does increase the export opportunities in the
intervening period giving Oakland County waste generators a greater range of
options for place of disposal.
Specifically, the change involves increases in permissive maximum imports into
Wayne County from Oakland County from 1 million gateyards per year to 2
million gateyards. This adjustment in Wayne County's Plan Update was
negotiated by the offices of the respective County Executives, affirmed by a
Wayne County request to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources in
December, 1994, and included in the January 20, 1995 Wayne County mandate
- documents as issued by the MDNR.
An additional and closely related change in the Wayne County Plan Update was
also included in the January 20, 1995 mandate. Originally, Wayne County
sought to limit imports from all inter-county flows to 2 million gateyards per
year and these are to be only from communities which meet minimum volume
reduction standards. The overall limit was increased by MDNR to 3.652 million
gateyards per year. The net result of all of this is that Oakland waste
generators are now able to compete for as much as 2 million gateyards per year
of imports into Wayne County in a substantially less restrictive market.
Note: At the time of this document preparation, April 25, 1995, Wayne
County has appealed the MDNR mandate in the Circuit Court for the
County of Wayne. Until the appeal is resolved, the inter-county
flow arrangements should be considered to be in a state of flux.
On April 12, 1991, MDNR conditionally approved the original Wayne
County Plan Update noting that until an amendment was adopted, the
Plan Update did not quantify any inter-county flows and
theoretically, all could be prohibited. As of August 4, 1993,
Wayne County had not adopted a Plan Update amendment and MDNR
assumed responsibility for issuance. Wayne County developed
suggested language for the pending mandate which was issued by
MDNR for public comment in the spring of 1994. MDNR issued
revised mandate language on January 20, 1995 and Wayne County is
objecting to the revised mandate language, although on grounds not
related to the Oakland County maximum numbers discussed herein
(ultimate size of one of the in-county landfills and the increased
annual maximum inter-county import levels).
The worst case scenario would involve extended litigation during
which the original Wayne County Plan Update language remained in
effect. In this instance, all inter-county flows to and from
Wayne County could theoretically be prohibited by MDNR and in
Oakland County's certification of available disposal capacity, no
such flows would be theoretically allowed in the certification.
Chapter 6 - Page 1
Chapter 7 - Inter-state and Inter-country Waste Flows
Chapter 7
Inter-state and Inter-country Waste Flows
A problem of major concern to the majority of solid waste planners in
southeastern Michigan (and other areas of the state) is the inter-state and
inter-country flow of wastes. In a June 1, 1992 decision, the US Supreme
Court determined that Michigan counties could not bar the import of out-of-
state wastes by provisions contained in their planning documents. If there
was a willing landfill operator, such wastes could flow unhindered.
Since release of the Supreme Court decision, a considerable amount of such
wastes have been imported to southeastern Michigan private sector landfills.
No definitive estimates of the quantities imported are available because of
the lack of mandatory, uniform reporting requirements (see Chapter 4). A
report released by the Michigan Waste Industries Association in March of 1994
indicated that in 1993, approximately 962,000 tons of such wastes were
imported to Michigan, 68,740 tons were exported, leaving a net import of
893,260 tons. Discussions by Oakland County solid waste staff with Canadian
consultants have left the impression that a considerably greater amount was
imported in 1994, from Canadian sources alone.
These imports are simply driven by landfill economics at the source of the
wastes. If it is cheaper to pay the cost of transporting the wastes to
Michigan and pay the Michigan tipping fee as well than it is to dispose of the
wastes locally, as long as there are willing landfill operators, wastes will
be imported.
This points in new directions if such imports are to be controlled in a
reasonable manner and if Michigan's counties are required to plan for the
future disposal of their own wastes. First, would be governmental ownership
of future landfills. Without a willing owner/operator, imports could not
come. Second, any new private sector landfill sited or expanded, should be
allowed only in the presence of a "host community agreement" where the owner
willingly agrees to limit or simply not accept such wastes.
A second US Supreme Court decision of May 15, 1994, may make the ownership
question a mute point. In this decision, the Supreme Court essentially barred
governmental agencies from entering into flow control agreements for the
future waste stream which would form the basis of financing such proposals.
Although legislation at the national level is currently proposed to
grandfather older flow control arrangements thus guaranteeing present
financing arrangements, future programs based on flow control would be allowed
only under a strenuous set of conditions. Additionally, national legislation
is proposed to allow some level of inter-state and inter-country flow
restrictions - supposedly at that level which existed as of a certain point in
time. However, adoption of such legislation is speculative at best.
All of this leaves solid waste planning agencies in a quandary. While they
may be required to provide for landfill capacity for disposal of their own
wastes for some minimum number of years, since they cannot control how much of
the available capacity is used by unplanned for and unwanted others, how do
they determine how much capacity to provide? For the purposes of this report,
inter-state and inter-country flows of wastes have essentially been ignored -
except as they may represent part of the imports estimated from other counties
as is provided for in the 1994 Plan Amendments. Pending national legislation
may provide the opportunity to control these flows in the future so that a
definitive impact on local disposal requirements may be made.
Chapter 7 - Page 1
Chapter 8 - Demonstration of Available Disposal Capacity
Chapter 8
Demonstration of Available Disposal Capacity
Using the techniques contained in the 1994 Plan Amendments, the projected
future waste stream (based upon a series of conservative assumptions
previously described) was measured against available in-county landfill
capacity and against the export opportunities to other willing counties. The
1994 Plan amendment approach was amended only by changing the assumption on
maximum permissible exports to Wayne County from 1 million gateyards per year
to 2 million.
As shown on Exhibit 8.2, Oakland County waste generators have access to more
than a sufficient amount of landfill capacity into year 2005, both with and
without considering the impact of the 1995 yard waste ban from landfills and
incinerators. As may be seen, disposal opportunities exceed estimated needs
by approximately 57% for the Year 2000 when considering the impact of the yard
waste ban.
Should the in-county landfill capacity be consumed at a rate greater than
shown or the level of imports into the county be greater than indicated, the
time period would shorten. Conversely, the time period would either be
greater than indicated or the excess disposal opportunities increased. Should
additional arrangements for export be made with other counties and these
arrangements included in appropriate amendments to the Plans (if required),
the excess disposal opportunities would be increased, the time period
expanded, or both. Conversely, should permissive exports to another county be
decreased by an amendment to that County's Act 641 Plan or by the unexpected
closure of a landfill facility, the excess disposal opportunities would be
decreased, the time period shortened, or both.
This Demonstration of Available Disposal Capacity process will be renewed each
year so that changes to the findings contained herein may be noted before a
crisis arises.
Findings:
Oakland County has access to more than the required 66 months of disposal
capacity at least through the Year 1996 and more likely into the Year 2000.
Therefore, Oakland County's Interim Siting Mechanism for landfill facilities
need not be made operative through 1996 as provided for in Act 641 as amended.
Chapter 8 - Page 1
Solid Waste Database
Oakland County, Michigan
Oakland
Qakiand_colulty's AvailableDisposal Capacity Opportunities (all_valuesin_annuaLgate.yards) Less Total Imports at Gtyd Capacity Net Avail.
s 20% Used by Oakland
Oakland Export Maximum of Oakland Available Permissable in-County
Year In-County Livingston Lapeer Lenawee Macomb Genesee Washtenaw Washtenaw Wayne Opportunities Available Capacity Imports Capacity
Capacity Primary Secondary .
0.256 0.749 0.025 0.250 2.000
1992 2.728 0.000 0.256 0.749 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 5.290 8.018 7.504 0.514 2.214
1993 2.136 0.000 0.256 0.749 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 5.290 7.426 7.030 0.396 1.740
1994 1.584 0.000 0.256 0.749 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 5.290 6.874 6.588 0.286 1.298
1995 3.016 0.000 0.256 0.749 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 5.290 8.306 7.734 0.572 2.444
1996 3.016 0.000 0.256 0.749 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 5.290 8.306 7.734 0.572 2.444
1997 3.016 0.000 0.256 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.541 7.557 6.985 0.572 2.444
1998 3.016 0.000 0.256 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.541 7.557 6.985 0.572 2.444
1999 3.016 0.000 0 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.285 7.301 6.729 0.572 2.444
2000 3.016 0.000 0 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.285 7.301 6.729 0.572 2.444
2001 3.016 0.000 0 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.285 7.301 6.729 0.572 2.444
2002 3.016 0.000 0 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.285 7.301 6.729 0.572 2.444
2003 3.016 0.000 0 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.285 7.301 6.729 0.572 2.444
2004 3.016 0.000 0 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.285 7.301 6.729 0.572 2.444
2005 0.156 0.000 0 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.285 4.441 4.441 0.000 0.156
2006 0.156 0.000 0 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.285 4.441 4.441 0.000 0.156
2007 0.156 0.000 0 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.285 4.441 4.441 0.000 0.156
2008 0.156 0.000 0 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.285 4.441 4.441 0.000 0.156
2009 0.156 0.000 0 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.285 4.441 4.441 0.000 0.156
2010 0.156 0.000 0 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.285 4.441 4.441 0.000 0.156
2011 0.156 0.000 0 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.285 4.441 4.441 0.000 0.156
2012 0.156 0.000 0 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.285 4.441 4.441 0.000 0.156
2013 0.156 0.000 0 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.285 2.441 2.441 0.000 0.156
2014 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.285 2.285 2.285 0.000 0.000
2015 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.285 2.285 2.285 0.000 0.000
2016 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.285 2.285 2.285 0.000 0.000
2017 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.000 0.000
2018 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.000 0.000
2019 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.000 0.000
2020 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.000 0.000
04/26/95
09:54
RJS. PE
CO
Z.0
Appendix
APPENDIX
List of Contents:
Special Thanks
Cautionary Notes to Other Governmental Units
Selected portions of the 1994 Plan Update Amendments -
Certification of Available Disposal Capacity
Selected Portions of Act 641 of the Public Acts of 1978 as Amended
What If...?
Work Sheets from Chapters 4 and 5
List of References
Special Thanks
Special Thanks
Special thanks are extended to the Oakland County Solid Waste Planning Committee
and especially to the sub-committee members listed below who volunteered their
time and efforts to review and comment on the draft material prepared for this
report. Their comments and advice was particularly helpful for staff in reaching
the primary conclusions contained herein. Without the help of such citizen
volunteers, such tasks are difficult, to say the least. Many thanks.
'rim Carpenter, P.E.
Alan Druschitz
Michael Izzo
Eugene Kaczmar
Yale Levin
Ardath Regan, SWPC Chairperson
Special Thanks - Page 1
Cautionary Notes
Cautionary Notes to Other Governmental Units
The material contained in this report is directed towards characterizing the Act
641 waste stream from Oakland County's perspective, as a single unit. Extreme
care must be taken in applying the findings to the waste stream from other
governmental units.
For example, yard waste assumptions are taken at the County level. Cities and
villages within the County may experience dramatically higher or lower
percentages of yard wastes depending upon the unique characteristics of the
community. The City of Pleasant Ridge (one of the fourteen municipalities in the
Southeastern Oakland County Resource Recovery Authority - SOCRRA) for instance,
consistently shows 30% of the single family residential waste stream as
compostable yard wastes and this community's land use is comprised almost
entirely of single family land uses. It is also a heavily treed, older urban
community with rather high-held expectations on appearance issues.
Other municipalities, for example, those with a high percentage of multi-family
dwelling units, will not display such high percentages of yard wastes on a per
capita basis. Or, those municipalities with a high percentage of commercial and
industrial land uses, will not achieve high yard waste percentages across the
entire MSW waste stream, since these types of land uses generally generate little
or no yard wastes at the curb.
As noted in Chapter 3, similar care must be taken when examining bankyard
requirements. It is worth repeating the notes...
"It should be noted here that the bankyard requirements displayed are based
on modern, large, high-volume, high-rise landfill facilities that do or
should achieve relatively high future compaction rates in the completed
facilities. In those areas of the state where smaller operations (both in
terms of ultimate size and daily volume) exist, it is likely that lower
compaction rates will occur. Thus some caution should be used when
attempting to directly use this information in cases and conditions other
than as described."
Similar cautionary words may be appropriate concerning gateyard production from a
given waste stream and Oakland County's 1994 Plan Amendments had these words...
"As indicated in Chapter 1, the waste stream is originally estimated and
projected on a tonnage or weight basis. Weight tends to be rather
absolute, whereas volumes of wastes can vary widely depending upon many
local factors. The problem in verifying the solid wastes estimates and
projections becomes one of comparing the weight based estimates to the real
world. In southeast Michigan, few facilities other than the incinerator
and waste-to-energy facilities weigh the waste stream. The majority of the
disposal facilities (landfills) charge a tip fee (that fee paid for tipping
the vehicle load into the landfill) that is based upon the volumetric
capacity of the delivery vehicle. Thus, the primary economic unit becomes
volume based - modified perhaps only by waste type or the delivery vehicle
type.
The weight of the average gateyard will vary widely depending upon numerous
factors. These range from the amount of moisture contained in the wastes;
the type of wastes (whether yard wastes, municipal solid waste (MSW),
construction and demolition debris (CDD), or industrial special wastes
(ISW)); the type of delivery vehicle (for example, rear loading route
packer trucks generally can pack the wastes more densely than side-loaders
Cautionary Notes - Page 1
Certification of Available Disposal Capacity
The material below was excernted from the 1994 Amendments to
the 1990 Solid Waste Management Plan Update - Chapter S.
Page 6.
III. The BoC shall annually certify and demonstrate remaining available
disposal capacity.
A. Certification of available disposal capacity shall be made
annually, by June 30 of each year. If a sufficient amount
of disposal capacity is available such that during the
entire next calendar year the County's disposal capacity
will not fall below that minimum reserve required by Amended
Act 641 or MDNR, landfill Requests shall not be considered,
commencing with the certification date and continuing on
through December 31 of the year following.
If the amount of available disposal capacity is expected to
become insufficient such that during the next calendar year
the County's disposal capacity will fall below that minimum
reserve required by Amended Act 641 or MDNR, landfill
Requests will be received by staff during the next calendar
year beginning on the insufficient capacity date certified.
B. The certification process shall include either the
recertification of the data contained in Chapters 1, 2, 3
and 4 of this Plan Amendment or the preparation of updated
replacement data and information. It is understood that
such certifications do not constitute a plan amendment but
will allow each certification to rely on up to date data.
C. Certification may be made at any other time as is deemed
appropriate by the BoC. Such certifications shall supersede
all previous certifications, shall become effective 30 days
after adoption, and will remain in effect until the next
mid-term or annual certification. Such mid-term
certifications, upon the date they become effective, shall
not impact upon landfill Requests which have been previously
received by the County Executive and which were properly and
timely submitted as provided in III. A. above.
D. Should additional disposal capacity be found consistent with
the plan, the certified available disposal capacity values
shall be automatically adjusted to account for the newly
designated capacity on the date such capacity is found
consistent. No official action by the Board of
Commissioners is necessary for this adjustment to take
effect.
Certification - Page 1
Act 641
Selected Portions of Act 641 of 1978 as Amended
Sec. 30. (2) Each solid waste management plan shall identify specific sites for
solid waste disposal areas for a 5-year period after approval of a plan or plan
update (approval date being the date approved by the MDNR Director). In
calculating disposal need requirements to measure compliance with this section,
only those existing waste stream volume reduction levels achieved through source
reduction, reuse, composting, recycling, or incineration, or any combination of
these reduction devices, that can currently be demonstrated or that can be
reasonably expected to be achieved through currently active implementation
efforts for proposed volume reduction projects, may be assumed by the planning
entity. In addition, if the solid waste management plan does not also identify
specific sites for solid waste disposal areas for the remaining portion of the
entire planning period required by this act (10 years) after approval of a plan
or plan update, the solid waste management plan shall include an interim siting
mechanism and an annual certification process as described in subsection (3) and
(4). In calculating the capacity of identified disposal areas to determine if
disposal needs are met for the entire required planning period, full achievement
of the solid waste management plan's volume reduction goals may be assumed by the
planning entity if the plan identifies a detailed programmatic approach to
achieving there goals. If a siting mechanism is not included, and disposal
capacity falls to less than 5 years of capacity, a county shall amend its plan to
resolve the shortfall.
(3) An interim siting mechanism shall include both a process and a set of
minimum siting criteria, both of which are not subject to interpretation or
discretionary acts by the planning entity, and which if met by an applicant
submitting a disposal area proposal, will guarantee a finding of consistency with
the plan. The interim siting mechanism shall be operative upon the call of the
board of commissioners or shall automatically be operative whenever the annual
certification process shows that available disposal capacity will provide for
less than 66 months of disposal needs. In the latter event, applications for a
finding of consistency from the proposers for disposal area capacity will be
received by the planning agency commencing on January 1 following completion of
the annual certification process. Once operative, an interim siting mechanism
will remain operative for at least 90 days or until more than 66 months of
disposal capacity is once again available, either by the approval of a request
for consistency or by the adoption of new certification process which concludes
that more than 66 months of disposal capacity is available.
(4) An annual certification process shall be concluded by June 30 of each
year, commencing on the first June 30 which is more than 12 months after the
department's approval of the plan or plan update. The certification process will
examine the remaining disposal area capacity available for solid wastes generated
within the planning area. In calculating disposal need requirements to measure
compliance with this section, only those existing waste stream volume reduction
levels achieved through source reduction, reuse, composting, recycling, or
incineration, or any combination of these reduction devices, that can currently
be demonstrated or that can be reasonably expected to be achieved through
currently active implementation efforts for proposed volume reduction projects,
may be assumed. The annual certification of disposal capacity shall be approved
by the board of commissioners. Failure to approve an annual certification by
June 30 is equivalent to a finding that less than a sufficient amount of capacity
is available and the interim siting mechanism will then be operative on the first
day of the following January. As part of the department's responsibility to act
on construction permit applications, the department has final decision authority
to approve or disapprove capacity certifications and to determine consistency of
a proposed disposal area with the solid waste management plan.
Act 641 - Page 1
What If...?
What If...?
During preparation of this report, many of the reviewing parties kept asking
"What If...?". These questions are appropriate and it is important that all
understand the ramifications involved should one of the alternate scenarios
come to fruition.
First, the waste stream projections are based upon a number of conservative
assumptions. These have included no future increase in the volume reduction
levels 'assumed for 1994, even though a general annual increase is noted by
all. They have included an assumption that the nationally observed volume
reduction levels are not occurring in Michigan. They have included an
assumption that all CDD and ISW waste stream components will be disposed of in
Type II landfills even through some of this waste is being directed to Type
III facilities in the region.
Second, an underlying assumption is made that all excess disposal capacity in
the region is used by others (most likely by wastes from other states and
Canada). If it were not, capacity in several counties would be available over
a longer period of time than is indicated. The net result of these several
assumptions is that Oakland County is being shown to require more Type II
landfill capacity than probably needed and regional landfill capacity will
probably be available longer than indicated.
For example, what if permissive imports to Wayne County were limited to 1
million gateyards per year or what if none were allowed at all? What if the
in-county landfills were filled at a greater rate than projected in the report
or at a lesser rate? What if imports into the in-county landfills from other
counties came at a greater rate than projected? What if permissible imports
to Genesee County were increased to the maximum allowed by the 1994 Plan
Amendments?
The answer to these questions were alluded to in Chapter 8, but it is
appropriate to illustrate several of the principal alternate scenarios and to
point out problems that might occur.
Exhibit WI.3 is a duplicate of Exhibit 8.2 from Chapter 8 for reference with
Wayne County imports limited to a maximum of 2 million gateyards per year.
Exhibit WI.4 shows Wayne County permissive imports limited to 1 million
gateyards per year and Exhibit WI.5 shows no permissive imports to Wayne. As
can quickly be seen, the excess disposal opportunities dramatically disappear
although theoretically, access to a sufficient amount of disposal capacity is
still maintained into year 2005. However, operational difficulties would
quickly begin to appear inasmuch as the excess disposal opportunities begin to
become limited. In this scenario, municipalities seeking a place of disposal
for their wastes would have to scramble to lockup disposal capacity and that
which would be available at a particular point in time, may not be the most
efficient in terms of cost, transportation time or transportation mechanics.
Overall rubbish removal fees would most certainly rise. Tipping fees may also
rise as Oakland County sources looked for cost efficient disposal
opportunities.
Two other changes would most certainly occur before the problems noted above
became severe. First, increased disposal opportunities would be probably by
sought and Exhibit WI.6 shows the impact of reaching an agreement with Genesee
County to export up to 500,000 gateyards per year as is allowed by Oakland
County's 1994 Plan Update Amendments. This scenario would improve upon the
excess disposal opportunities and hold the serious problems noted above at
What If...? - Page 1
Year_2(240._Exceas
Disposal Opportunities
wo_YW_Ban reafti_Ban
50.68% 57.28%
Year_During.Which
Insufficient Capacity Occurs
wo _YW Ban w_YW Ban
2005 2005
10:14
8
x
Oakland County
%-- —4.-4.— • Disposal Capacity
Availability
6 — Spring, 1995
s-----11-16-11-11"1-1.-11-111
_._ .--E--s---- —
is -0---a-11—.- ...—o--4----• +-4---- v) ___.—•---0"-- - , A—A—k—A P. -A—A-------- ni — ----6-1----• >,
. co 4-1
$
• Needs without Volume Reduction
° 4 —
• Needs at Constant VR% Projection
0 c A Needs incl. 1995 Yard Waste Ban .0
0 Type II Needs wo CDD & ISW
-6 Net In-County Capacity after Imports
• Net Total Available Capacity a ,
2 —
x Landfdl Operating Factors
1.0 = 2,500 Gtyds / Working Day 1.4 = 3,500 Gtyds / Working Day
1.7 = 4,250 Gtyds / Working Day
2.0 = 5,000 Gtyds / Working Day 2.4 = 6,000 Gtyds / Working Day
((3 :500 xx 358,63 = 7,18560, CC G Ttlys8/sYear) year
I I I _L_. l't ___1' tf i\- i'----A AA ish *-0
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
- YEAR -
Variables ..
Demonstrated Wayne-Oakland Eagle Valley Genesee Co Arbor Hills Wayne CO.
Vol. Reduction Factor Factor Exports Q 0.5? Extra? Gateyards _ _ _ _ _
15.00% 2.00 200 0.025 0.25 2.00 _ —
Imports as a % of available in-county capacity -x 20.00% I
RJS, PE 04/26/95
4 Millions of Gateyards Arbor Hills
Extra?
Wayne Co.
Gateyards Exports 0.5?
0.00 0.25 0.025
20.00%
Oakland County
• Disposal Capacity
Availability
Spring, 1995
-
2018 2020
11-11—a-1111-111-11
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2018
- YEAR -
• Needs without Volume Reduction
• Needs at Constant VR% Projection
A Needs incl. 1995 Yard Waste Ban
p Type II Needs wo CDD & ISW
-A Net In-County Capacity after Imports
• Net Total Available Capacity
Landfill Operating Factors
1.0 = 2,500 Gtyds / Working Day
1.4 = 3,500 Gtyds / Working Day
1.7 = 4,250 Gtyds / Working Day
2.0 = 5,000 Gtyds / Working Day
2.4 = 6.000 Gtyds / Working Day
(2.500 x 286 = 715.000 Gtyds / Year)
(3,500 x 288 =1.001,000 Gtyds / Year
Principal Variables
Demonstrated Wayne-Oakland
Vol. Reduction Factor
15.00% 2.00
Imports as a % of available in-county capacity —5
Year 200SLExcess
Disposal Opportunities
wo YW Ban w YW Ban
5.89% 10.53%
Year During_Mich
Insufficient Capacity Occurs
wo YW Ban wileatan
2005 2005
Eagle Valley
Factor
2.00
10:15
RJS, PE 04/28/95
Year 2000 Excess
Disposal Opportunities
vanti_Ban VOTthan
21.65% 26.98%
Year_puring_Which
Insufficient Capacity Occurs
wk_rtal.an w YW Ban
2004 2004
10:18
8
_ #
Oakland County
• Disposal Capacity
Availability
6 — Spring, 1995
_ m____.--s—a-
*--•---- -0-4--- 4
0 -.-- --4)-4-- -• A—A P
.--- 4.-4: - -.---- • --- •-- -•----- • ---•--
co *---4-- * -4,--- _A -- • — - -- A — • Needs without Volume Reduction
(,-3 4 -
- -A ------A----A— A ,a_e__0--e----0-----e'—`) , . *
. • Needs at Constant VR% Projection
w c e Needs incl. 1995 Yard Waste Ban 0
1 0 Type II Needs wo CDD & ISW
•--*--•—•—•—•—• • 4°'''-o ,r Net In-County Capacity after Imports
„ ....... , •
• Net Total Available Capacity
2 —
Landfill Operating Factors
1.0 = 2,500 Gtyds / Working Day
1.4 = 3,500 Gtyds / Working Day
1.7 = 4,250 Gtyds /Working Day
— 2.0 = 5,000 Gtyds I Working Day
2..(12.' 6, x 266 715,000 / 715,0001 ptydasy/ Year)
0 I I I I l 4 4 4 4 l' " l'----- A—A---A--A A A
(3,500 x 288 = 1,001,000 Gtyds / Year
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
- YEAR -
ial Variables
Demonstrated Wayne-Oakland Eagle Valley GOI1OUND CO Arbor Hills Wayne Co.
Vol. Reduction Factor Factor Exports 0 0.5? _ Extra? Gateyards
15.00% 2.20 2.20 0.500 0.25 • 0.00 _
Imports as a % of available in-county capacity 20.00%
RJS, PE 04/28/95
Year 2000 Excess
Disposal Opportunities
w.o_rkalan w_ntalan
16.14% 21.23%
YeadlifingAbich
Insufficient Capacity Occurs
woIlA1131n w YW Ban
2003 2003
10:20
- -- a •
Oakland County
• Disposal Capacity
Availability
_ Spring, 1995
--m—e---a-11
--. —•---- -- --G.-4,--.
En ___,__*----.--*---• A____ A
P
>-. • Needs without Volume Reduction
0 4 — . : . t s • Needs at Constant VR% Projection 15 : • * : 4 . G----0----_, 4)
p C -A Needs incl. 1995 Yard Waste Ban
.e. Type II Needs wo CDD & ISW
Net In-County Capacity after Imports
• Net Total Available Capacity *--*--1.-4D--*--iii-- a•—s—o— —*—
—
, Landfill Operating Factors
1.0 = 2,500 Gtyds / Working Day
1.4 = 3,500 Gtyds / Working Day
1.7 = 4,250 Gtyds / Working Day
2.0= 5,000 Gtyds / Melting Day
2.4 = 8,000 Gtyds / Working Day
1 1 1 1 1 widnimote— .............. A g:5528 ax R166 : 71110(10 Getysd/sYi eyaer)a,
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
- YEAR -
Variables _
Demonstrated Wayne-Oakland Eagle Valley Genesee Co Arbor Hills Wayne Co.
Vol. Reduction Factor Factor Exports 12 0.5?_ Extra? Gateyards
15.00% 2.40 2.40 0.025 0.25 000 _
Imports as a % of available in-county capacity 2000%
RJS. PE 04/28/95
Work Sheets from Chapters 4 and 5
Work Sheets from Chapters 4 and 5
Following are work sheets pertaining to the information in Chapters 4 and 5.
These exhibits show some detail about the national data, converting the material
for use in Michigan and/or Oakland County and considerable detail about the
development of the gateyard and bankyard projections for Oakland County. These
work sheets are briefly described below.
Pages 2 through 6: These are out-takes from the original Chapter 4. They are
included here to show the thought process used to arrive at the conclusions.
WS.7 through WS.9: These sheets show development of the revised generation
factors.
WS.10 through WS.12: Yard waste estimates, 1996 to 2000.
WS.14 and WS.15: Adjustments to the KAB data for Michigan's ban on yard wastes
from landfills and incinerators.
WS.16 through WS.30: Details of the gateyard and bankyard projection model.
These are generally self-explanatory.
Work Sheets - Page 1
Work Sheets from Chapters 4 and 5
National Employment Levels v Michigan's: To get a handle on whether Michigan's
employment picture mirrors that of the nation, the 1990 US Census data offered
the following insights.
Employed Persons
Industrial*
Percent Ind.
Population
Employed / Capita
MI as a %
United States Michigan of the US
115,681,202 4,166,196 3.60%
31,515,636 1,314,869 4.17%
27.24% 31.56% 115.86%
248,709,873 9,295,297 3.74%
0.4651 0.4482 96.37%
* Defined as persons employed in SIC Codes 00-39.
Conclusions? Michigan (in 1990) had a lower per capita employment than the
nation although it had a higher than average industrial employment base.
However, the differences in the ratio previously noted (69.60% v 100.41%) do not
seem warranted. Adjustments in the Oakland County estimating method do appear
necessary. This is also supported by other indications.
Podjusting the Michigan Waste Stream Estimates: As noted in the Oakland County
1994 Plan Amendments, Oakland has been uncomfortable with its current estimating
method in terms of the residential factors used (understated) and the combined
commercial and industrial factors used (overstated) although no specific
generation studies were available to allow appropriate adjustments to be made.
At the same time, there is a great deal of comfort with the overall answers
produced when examining large regional areas and the state as a whole.
Exhibits 3.18 and 3.19 display adjustments to Oakland County's generation factors
as applied to the national waste stream in order to achieve the observed
percentage distribution between the residential and commercial / industrial
stream segments - after initial adjustments for the differences in the employment
base and, after allowing for Michigan's yard waste stream (as adjusted to the
Oakland County yard waste percentages). The adjustments noted below are required
in the generation factors.
Population
Commercial Employees
Industrial Employees
Total # / Capita / Day
Generation Factors
(# / Unit / Day)
Original Revised
2.90 3.42
5.75 5.75
10.61 6.89
6.16 6.16
These adjustments applied to the 1990 Census data produce Ratios of the
Residential to Commercial & Industrial MSW stream as shown below and produce a
close match to the KAB target value.
Unit Ratio
Detailed Factors
KAB target (straight-lined to 1990) 101.0102
United States 101.0078
US converted to MI's employment mixture 101.9451
Michigan 101.9533
Factors Rounded to 2 decimal places
Michigan 101.9500
Oakland County 89.3725
The net result of these adjustments produces the yard waste findings shown below.
The 1994 results for Michigan and Oakland County are based on 20% yard waste
generation within the residential waste stream and 2% within the commercial and
Work Sheets - Page 3
Work Sheets from Chapters 4 and 5
Municipal Solid Waste
Michigan and Oakland County
1994
Ratio - Resid.
Percentage of Waste Stream to Comm & In
Category 1991 1994 Residential (wo YT) 43.47%
Comm. / Ind. (wo YT) 44.75% 97.14%
All Yard Trimmings (YT) 11.78% *
Total. 100%
Category Recovery Percentage
Category 1994
Residential (wo YT) 17.93% **
Comm. / Ind. (wo YT) 28.82% **
All Yard Trimmings (YT) 31.50% ***
Total Recovery Percentage 24.40%
Percentage of Total Recovery
Category 1994
Residential (wo YT) 7.79%
Comm. / Ind. (wo YT) 12.90%
All Yard Trimmings (YT) 3.71%
Total Recovery Percentage 24.40%
Oakland County - 1994 Ratio - Resid.
Percentage of Waste Stream to Comm & Ind
Category 1994 1991
Residential (wo YT) 37.50%
Comm. / Ind. (wo YT) 52.06% 72.03%
All Yard Trimmings (YT) 10.44% *
Total 100%
Category Recovery Percentage
Category 1994
Residential (wo YT) 17.93% **
Comm. / Ind. (wo YT) 28.82% **
All Yard Trimmings (YT) 31.50% ***
Total Recovery Percentage 25.02%
Percentage of Total Recovery
Category 1994
Residential (wo YT) 6.72%
Comm. / Ind. (wo YT) 15.00%
All Yard Trimmings (YT) 3.29%
Total Recovery Percentage 25.02%
* The value shown is the sum of SR & R and Generation (as defined
by US EPA and KAB - placed at the curb).
** Extrapolated from KAB data to 1994.
*** The primary Oakland / Michigan assumptions for 1994,
((I - SR & R)*Recovery Percentage) or ((I - .1)*0.35) . .315
Michigan - 1994
Work Sheets - Page 5
Item
Population
Comm Emp
Ind Emp
Tot Emp
Emp/Capita
Yard Trimmings
Totals
1990 Values
248,709,873
84,165,566
31,515,636
115.681.202
0.4651
Less YT
20.00%
2.00%
2.00%
5.95 Combined Emp. Factor
YT Remainder
(85,146) 340,583
(4,840) 237,136
(2,042) 100,049
Factor
3.4235
5.75
6.9092
TPD
425.729
241,976
102,091
92,027 11.95%
769,796 769,796 100.00%
6.19 a/ Cap Day
Totals
Stream increase
03/28/95
13:31
90USPOP.VVK4
From 1990 Census - United States
Use Oakland County's Generation Factors to look at the national MSW stream Ratio -
Comm Resid /
Item 1990 Values Factor TPD Less YT YT Remainder Percent & Ind Tot Comm & Ind
Population 248,709,873 2.90 360,629 20.00% (72,126) 288,503 37.48%
Comm Emp 84,185,566 5.75 241,976 2.00% (4,840) 237,136 30.81% 52.09% 71.95%
Ind Emp 31,515,636 10.61 167,190 2.00% (3,344) 163,847 21.28%
Tot Emp 115,681,202 Way Offi
Emp/Capita 0.4651 7.07 Combined Emp. Factor
Yard Trimmings
ease Yard Waste Assumptions - Michigan
(as a % of stream segment prior to SR & R)
Segment percent
Residential 20,90x
Commercial 2.00%
Industrial 2.00% 80,309 10.43%
769,796
6.19 a/Cap/Day
Based uoon nervousness expressed in the 1994 Plan Upaate. unepts
769,796 100.00%
aecreasina
Totals
the Industrial factorlto get same total waste stream shown above_until ratio of residential / comm. & Ind. = KAB study ratio,
Ratio -
Resid /
Comm & Ind
Ratio of Residential wastes to Commerical &
industrial wastes (all without yard wastes)
Iarg
101.0102% « Target from KAB study straight-lined to 1990..
100.4128% « Target from KAB 1992 data.
98.0228% « Target from 1(AB 2000 estimates.
Bring new factors down & apply to revised employment figures as if the nation had Michigan's 1990 employment picture,
VVhat if? increase emp/cap by... Michigan's Ind %
0.9637 31.56% Ratio -
Comm Resid /
Item 1990 Values Factor TPD Less YT YT Remainder Percent & Ind Tot Comm & Ind
Population 248,709,873 3.4235 425,729 20.00% (85.146) 340,583 44.43%
Comm Emp 76,297,817 5.75 219.356 2.00% (4,387) 214.969 28.04% 43.58% 101.9451% « New target for Michigan's employment mix.
Ind Emp 35.184.157 6.9092 121,547 2.00% (2,431) 119,116 15.54% To be used in setting new generation factors.
Tot Emp 111,481,974
Emp/Capita 0.4482 6.12 Combined Emp. Factor
Yard Trimmings 91,964 12.00%
Comm
Percent & Ind Tot
44.24%
30.81% 43.80% 101.0078%
13.00%
766,632
6.16 a/cap/Day
-0.41%
766,632 100.00%
Factors rounded
Ratio -
Comm Resid /
Item 1990 Values Factor TPD Less YT YT Remainder Percent & Ind Tot Comm & Ind
Population 248,709,873 3.42 425,294 20.00% (85,059) 340,235 44.43%
Comm Emp 76,297,817 5.75 219,356 2.00% (4,387) 214,969 28.07% 43.58% 101.9418%
Ind Emp 35,184,157 6.89 121,209 2.00% (2,424) 118,785 15.51%
Tot Emp 111,481,974
Emp/Capita 0.4482 6.11 Combined Emp. Factor
Yard Trimmings 91,870 12.00%
Totals 765,860 765,860 100.00%
6.16 I/ Cap / Day
Stream increase -0.51%
From 1990 Census - Oakland County
Factors rounded
03/28/95
13:31
90USP0P.WK4
Ratio -
Comm Resid /
Item 1990 Values Factor TPD Less YT YT Remainder Percent & Ind Tot Comm & Ind
Population 1,083,592 3.42 1,853 20.00% (371) 1,482 41.81%
Comm Emp 398,002 5.75 1,144 2.00% (23) 1,121 31.63% 46.78% 89.3729%
Ind Emp 159,132 6.89 548 2.00% (11) 537 15.15%
Tot Emp 557,134
Emp/Capita 0.5142 6.08 Combined Emp. Factor
Yard Trimmings 404 11.41%
Totals 3,545 3,545 100.00%
6.54 #/ Cap / Day
4,208.19
4,208.19
Year 1996 Yard Waste Estimates Residential Commercial Industrial Yard Trim Total MSW
Michigan 16,401.40 9,104.17 4,679.58 30,185.15
Growth to 1996 1.010053 13,121.12 8,922.09 4,585.99 3,555.95 30,185.15
Growth is based on this proportion of US EPA 43.47% 29.56% 15.19% 11.78% .
population estimates for the United States. 50% 13,508.08
1994 260,527 44.75% R/C&I Ratio = 97.1353%
1996 265,765
1996 Assumptions
Without additional SR & R
KAB Method, after SR & R (all at 4%)
3,280.28 182.08 93.59 3,555.95 Total YT 0.2 0.02
574.05 31.86 16.38 622.29 SR & R 0.175 0.175
2,706.23 150.22 77.21 2,933.66 To Curb
2,300.30 127.69 65.63 2,493.61 Recovered 0.85 0.85
405.93 22.53 11.58 440.05 Disposed of
20.00% 2.00% 2.00% 11.78% Total YT
3.50% 0.35% 0.35% 2.06% SR & R
16.50% 1.65% 1.65% 9.72% To Curb
14.03% 1.40% 1.40% 8.26% Recovered
2.47% 0.25% 0.25% 1.46% Disposed of
3.65% 0.36% 0.36% 2.15% SR & R "above the line"
17.19% 1.72% 1.72% 10.12% To Curb or "Generated"
14.61% 1.46% 1.46% 8.61% Recovered
2.58% 0.26% 0.26% 1.52% Disposed of
Oakland County 1,972.60 1,664.49 571.10
Growth to 1996 1.016623 1,578.08 1,631.20 559.68 439.23
37.50% 38.76% 13.30% 10.44%
2,190.87
1994 4,139.38 52.06% R/C&I Ratio = 72.0299%
1996 4,208.19
1996 Assumptions
Without additional SR & R
KAB Method, after SR & R (all at 4%)
03/28/95
KABFrank.wk4
"Adjust4"
394.52 33.29 11.42 439.23 Total YT 0.2 0.02
69.04 5.83 2.00 76.87 SR & R 0.175 0.175
325.48 27.46 9.42 362.37 To Curb
276.66 23.34 8.01 308.01 Recovered 0.85 0.85
48.82 4.12 1.41 54.36 Disposed of
20.00% 2.00% 2.00% 10.44% Total YT
3.50% 0.35% 0.35% 1.83% SR & R
16.50% 1.65% 1.65% 8.61% To Curb
14.03% 1.40% 1.40% 7.32% Recovered
2.47% 0.25% 0.25% 1.29% Disposed of
3.65% 0.36% 0.36% 1.90% SR & R "above the line"
17.19% 1.72% 1.72% 8.97% To Curb or "Generated"
14.61% 1.46% 1.46% 7.62% Recovered
2.58% 0.26% 0.26% 1.35% Disposed of
WS . 13
m 1 5 5
th ig
I : 5 a I
mg 5 mg
1 A Ig
jE
tA $ I ; I; 1.2 1_
10 i;
I e
i;
Ili 1
3!
1
Rk °A
2
IFIP3 g - REJR R a akau 1 .1, 102 - g Vidg t ° g A_ RagA 0 RafF g '
1 44444$ • tigta"ta
.,1 t$ 'WI 00 :22 64
iji 0 Al 22 ss
N . §! 2 g = °
$ #
=
.6 gi e . .4 r. 0 0 ... F. - -
2 " A g " ' $ $ C 11 $ $ $ A ° A 5 11 Agg 5 $ g $ 5 4 $
alas a F. L R 7.11R0. E 5 i V WI R "=. L ! Ma I R 01 5 °
1 A A 1 A *
g a , , : -. A . A ° RI A ° g - A A - ; - 2 ; -
A AA A' a ,, A nA a 0 . ;,-. '.-.A - iC:_r a .4
li.."43. 7. R IR Rik? R 2 RR larg. li
ag. F. 5 02
ridria - 'a • gdtia - a ncing - 1 . idAs
•
/e” / 11 1 C 5R-55
- 2 2 .2 !
g g akaa
t
41 A t g 2 2 5
2 n *
..fd:irf • g .4 0 A « A6tt t A . Attid
effee A E.:k 41 R4 0 aina af .4 Rill 1 56.4t g apt -g R 50 " ta22 t ga ',1t212 t
m
11:1
Id1-111P ..m I. .,m.
11" I:4 1 e z1 2
) 2
I
m II: ... 11 % WI ni 1 .1,1 len !it a ,Ii 2 1 I11111 i 1 414 iiviilif Al l'I'-' -- 8 11:1 JIM! trip
-41 41 i 1 ii -
mil I i i
iii lir t
1 11 Ili
:I 2 lei
111111 1 INT
1
III:1 1
liii
Vi '5 Vic 1
11:1 :1 lqi 1 ilei 4 1 till 1
MAI 1 i111 31 11411 1 11 1 1 12 13i 01: 1' 1 3 1 ili 3 il 1" 1 1 Ili :1 i i/tImels li ilitli i' 11'11 ' 11 i Illi
hil/1111 1 VII OTT TIP i 1.-13 : 'AS iiillillii 1 1 t)91 5 Iliiillill 1 aillii
Iii! 2 2 1 iih 32 1 n
WS.15
03/20/95
12:26
RJS, PE
Projectl VVK4
MSW Generation Rates
Original Revised
2.90 3.42
5.75 5.75
10.61 6.89
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
MESC5.WK4
Observed in 1994
Observed % of Straight-line
1,134,705 101.74%
112,304 91.09%
163,066 106.38%
732,553 107.01%
15.33%
Update Projections
• Straight-lined to 1994
• 1990 2010 1994
Population 1,080,225 1,255,709 1,115,322
Manuf Emp. 121,938 128,703 123,291
SIC 00-39 151,871 158,978 153,292
Tot. Emp. 642,493 852,858 684,566
% Manuf 18.98% 15.09% 18.01%
MSW
COD
'SW
Total 641
1990 2010
(tpd)
3,735.58
378.08
1,009.92
5,123.58
(tPd)
4,598.92
439.50
1,065.82
6,104.24
Straight-line Projections of 1990 & 2010
Data from Plan Update as Amended
Revised based on Observed 94 Emp & Pop
Plus CDD & ISW = 20% of Total (Statewide)
Revised Using Original
ISW Projection Method
56,604
101.27% En
10 Yr Total, 1995-2004 55,894
Percent of Plan Update 100.00%
52,503
93.93%
1995 Through 2010 91,784
Percent of Plan Update 100.00% 93.67% 100.54%
85,975 92,282
New 1994 Projections
(Original Generation Rates)
4,147.66 82.40%
397.15 7.89%
489.03 9.71%
5,033.84 100.00%
MSW CDD
New 1994 Projections
(Revised Generation Rates1
4,139.38 82.38%
397.15 7.90%
488.07 9,71%
5,024.60 100.00%
New 1994
ISW Total % of Orig:
Original
'SW
Adjusted
to 1994
Observed
Manuf Emp
D'Z
Alternate
1994
Total % of Ong
N/E
Year MSW CDD ISW Total
1990 3,735.58
1991 3,778.75
1992 3,821.91
1993 3,865.08
1994 3,908.25
1995 3,951.42
1996 3,994.58
1997 4,037.75
1998 4,080.92
1999 4,124.08
2000 4,167.25
2001 4,210.42
2002 4,253.58
2003 4,296.75
2004 4,339.92
2005 4,383.09
2006 4,426.25
2007 4,469.42
2008 4,512.59
2009 4,555.75
2010 4,598.92
A
378.08
381.15
384.22
387.29
390.36
393.44
396.51
399.58
402.65
405.72
408.79
411.86
414.93
418.00
421.07
424.15
427.22
430.29
433.36
436.43
439.50
1,009.92
1,012.72
1,015.51
1,018.31
1,021.10
1,023.90
1,026.69
1,029.49
1,032.28
1,035.08
1,037.87
1,040.67
1,043.46
1,046.26
1,049.05
1,051.85
1,054.64
1,057.44
1,060.23
1,063.03
1,065.82
5,123.58
5,172.61
5,221.65
5,270.68
5,319.71
5,368.75
5,417.78
5,466.81
5,515.84
5,564.88
5,613.91
5,662.94
5,711.98
5,761.01
5,810.04
5,859.08
5,908.11
5,957.14
6,006.17
6,055.21
6,104.24
3,780.92
3,870.53
3,960.15
4,049.76
4,139.38
4,173.78
4,208.19
4,242.59
4,277.00
4,311.40
4,345.80
4,380.21
4,414.61
4,449.02
4,483.42
4,517.83
4,552.23
4,586.63
4,621.04
4,655.44
4,689.85
378.08
382.85
387.62
392.38
397.15
399.80
402.44
405.09
407.74
410.38
413.03
415.68
418.33
420.97
423.62
426.27
428.91
431.56
434.21
436.85
439.50
447.52
457.61
467.76
477.92
488.07
492.06
496.04
500.03
504.01
508.00
511.99
515.97
519.96
523.95
527.93
531.92
535.90
539.89
543.88
547.86
551.85
4,606.51
4,710.99
4,815.53
4,920.06
5,024.60
5,065.64
5,106.67
5,147.71
5,188.75
5,229.79
5,270.82
5,311.86
5,352.90
5,393.94
5,434.97
5,476.01
5,517.05
5,558.08
5,599.12
5,640.16
5,681.20
89.91%
91.08%
92.22%
93.35%
94.45%
94.35%
94.26%
94.16%
94.07%
93.98%
93.89%
93.80%
93.71%
93.63%
93.54%
93.46%
93.38%
93.30%
93.22%
93.15%
93.07%
859.66
877.88
895.68
913.08
930.11
927.97
925.94
924.03
922.22
920.51
918.89
917.37
915.93
914.58
913.32
912.13
911.01
909.97
908.99
908.09
907.24
5,018.66 97.95%
5,131.26 99.20%
5,243.44 100.42%
5,355.23 101.60%
5,466.64 102.76%
5,501.55 102.47%
5,536.57 102.19%
5,571.71 101.92%
5,606.95 101.65%
5,642.29 101.39%
5,677.73 101.14%
5,713.26 100.89%
5,748.87 100.65%
5,784.57 100.41%
5,820.36 100.18%
5,856.22 99.95%
5,892.15 99.73%
5,928.16 99.51%
5,964.24 99.30%
6,000.38 99.09%
6,036.59 98.89%
0
03/22/95
12:55 MSW
RJS, PE CDD
Projectl.VVK4 ISW
Total 641
Details of Revised plus CDD & ISW = 20%
Resid Comm Ind Total Year
1,847.18 1,410.54 523.20 3,780.92 1990
1,870.47 1,467.22 532.84 3,870.53 1991
1,893.77 1,523.91 542.48 3,960.15 1992
1,917.06 1,580.59 552.12 4,049.77 1993
1,940.35 1,637.28 561.76 4,139.38 1994
1,953.28 1,659.63 560.88 4,173.79 1995
1,966.21 1,681.98 560.00 4,208.19 1996
1,979.14 1,704.33 559.12 4,242.59 1997
1,992.07 1,726.68 558.24 4,277.00 1998
2,005.01 1,749.03 557.36 4,311.40 1999
2,017.94 1,771.39 556.48 4,345.81 2000
2,030.87 1,793.74 555.60 4,380.21 2001
2,043.80 1,816.09 554.72 4,414.61 2002
2,056.74 1,838.44 553.84 4,449.02 2003
2,069.67 1,860.79 552.96 4,483.42 2004
2,082.60 1,883.15 552.08 4,517.83 2005
2,095.53 1,905.50 551.20 4,552.23 2006
2,108.47 1,927.85 550.32 4,586.63 2007
2,121.40 1,950.20 549.44 4,621.04 2008
2,134.33 1,972.55 548.56 4,655.44 2009
2,147.26 1,994.91 547.68 4,689.85 2010
Adjusting for Michigan's Yard Waste Ban Straight-line
Generalized Volume
Belluct2a.Asaumations
MSW 15.00%
Straight-line Modifications
Modified Modified • Total
SR & R
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
• 4.00%
4.39%
4.78%
4.78%
4.78%
4.78%
4.78%
4.78%
4.78%
4.78%
4.78%
4.78%
4.78%
4.78%
4.78%
4.78%
4.78%
Composting
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
3.29%
5.30%
7.32%
7.32%
7.32%
7.32%
7.32%
7.32%
7.32%
7.32%
7.32%
7.32%
7.32%
7.32%
7.32%
7.32%
7.32%
Difference
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
-0.71%
1.70%
4.10%
4.10%
4.10%
4.10%
4.10%
4.10%
4.10%
4.10%
4.10%
4.10%
4.10%
4.10%
4.10%
4.10%
4.10%
I •
15.00%
15.00%
3.29%
1.04%
7.32%
• 1.83%
CDD
'SW
94 Yard Waste Adjust
94 YW SR & R Adjust.
96 & Beyond YW Adjust
96 & Beyond YW SR & R Adjust,
Original Volume Reduction Goals from 1990 Plan Update
If year 2000 estimates from NAB
data were also used
2000 & Beyond YW Adjust. 9.32%
2000 & Beyond YW SR & R Adjust 2.59%
Year SR & R Composting Recycling Sub-total WM and Total
All VR Direct Landfill
1990 0.00% 0.00V. 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100%
1991 1.00% 1.00% 4.00% 6.00% 94.00% 100%
1992 2.00% 2.00% 8.00% 12.00% 88.00% 100%
1993 3.00% 3.00% 12.00% 18.00% 82.00% 100%
1994 4.00% 4.00% 16.00% 24.00% 76.00% 100%
1995 6.00% 6.00% 20.00% 30.00% 70.00% 100%
1996 5.50% 5.00% 22.00% 32.50% 67.50% 100%
1997 6.00% 5.00% 24.00% 35.00% 65.00% 100%
1998 6.50% 5.00% 26.00% 37.50% 62.50% 100%
1999 7.00% 5.00% 28.00% 40.00% 60.00% 100%
2000 7.50% 5.00% 30.00% 42.50% 57.50% 100%
2001 8.00% 5.00% 31.00% 44.00% 56.00% 100%
2002 8.50% 5.00% 32.00% 45.50% 54.50% 100%
2003 9.00% 5.00% 33.00% 47.00% 53.00% 100%
2004 9.50% 5.00% 34.00% 48.50% 51.50% 100%
2005 10.00% 5.00% 36.00% 50.00% 50.00% 100%
2006 10.00% 5.00% 35.00% 50.00% 50.00% 100%
2007 10.00% 5.00% 35.00% 50.00% 50.00% 100%
2008 10.00% 5.00% 35.00% 50.00% 50.00% 100%
2009 10.00% 5.00% 35.00% 50.00% 50.00% 100%
2010 10.00% 6.00% 35.00% 50.00% 50.00% 100%
For 1995 Capacity Certification
Baseline Baseline Baseline
SR & R Composting Recycling Total
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
1.00% 1.00% 1.75% 3.75%
2.00% 2.00% 3.50% 7.50%
3.00% 3.00% 5.25% 11.25%
4.00% 4.00% 7.00% 15.00%
4.00% 4.00% 7.00% 15.00%
4.00% 4.00% 7.00% 15.00%
4.00% 4.00% 7.00% 15.00%
4.00% 4.00% 7.00% 15.00%
4.00% 4.00% 7.00% 15.00%
4.00% 4.00% 7.00% 15.00%
4.00% 4.00% 7.00% 15.00%
4.00% 4.00% 7.00% 15.00%
4.00% 4.00% 7.00% 15.00%
4.00% 4.00% 7.00% 15.00%
4.00% 4.00% 7.00% 15.00%
4.00% 4.00% 7.00% 15.00%
4.00% 4.00% 7.00% 15.00%
4.00% 4.00% 7.00% 15.00%
4.00% 4.00% 7.00% 15.00%
4.00% 4.00% 7.00% 15.00%
Straight-line Modifications
Modified Modified Total
SR & R Composting Difference
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
1.00% 1.00% 0.00%
2.00% 2.00% 0.00%
3.00% 3.00% 0.00%
• 4.00% 3.29% -0.71%
4.39% 5.30% 1.7o%
4.78% 7.32% 4.10%
4.97% 7.82% 4.80%
5.16% 8.32% 549%
5.35% 8.82% 6.18%
5.55% 9.32% 6.87%
5.55% 9.32% 6.87%
5.55% 9.32% 6.87%
5.55% 9.32% 6.87%
5.55% 9.32% 6.87%
5.55% 9.32% 6.87%
5.55% 9.32% 6.87%
5.55% 9.32% 6.87%
5.55% 9.32% 6.87%
5.55% 9.32% 6.87%
5.55% 9.32% 6.87%
• The primary assumption here is that the 94 YW SR & R adjust value
was already included in the original 1994 SR & R value. Therefore,
this adjust value is also subtracted from the remaining modified SR & R
values. This produces a conservative future estimate.
03/22/95
12:33
RJS, PE
Project 1.WK4
Sample 1994
Other recycling
residues
are based on
the recycling
% below
<<<< 15.00% >>>>
All future years
are proportional to
size of the
Original stream.
Past years are based
proportionatly on
original goals.
• t %
19. •an Update Values
- 1994 Amendment
Other Act 641 Waste
Volume Reduction Residue Details
CDD ISW Total
Year (Gateyards) (Gateyards) (Gateyards)
1990 0 0 0
1991 783 1,188 1,971
1992 1,578 2,383 3,961
1993 2,385 3,584 5,970
1994 3,206 4,792 7,998
1995 3,231 4,805 8,036
1996 3,256 4,818 8,074
1997 3,282 4,831 8,113
1998 3,307 4,844 8,151
1999 3,332 4,857 8,189
2000 3,357 4,871 8,228
2001 3,382 4,884 8,266
2002 3,408 4,897 8,304
2003 3,433 4,910 8,343
2004 3,458 4,923 8,381
2005 3,483 4,936 8,419
2006 3,509 4,949 8,458
2007 3,534 4,962 8,496
2008 3,559 4,976 8,534
2009 3,584 4,989 8,573
2010 3,609 5,002 8,611
Adjusted for 1994 Observed Values
with COD & ISW = 20% of Total
Other Act 641 Wastes
Volume Reduction Residue Details
COD )SW Total
Year (Gateyards) (Gateyards) (Gateyards)
1990 0 0 0
1991 786 537 1,323
1992 1,592 1,098 2,689
1993 2,417 1,682 4,099
1994 3,262 2,290 5,552
1995 3,283 2,309 5,592
1996 3,305 2,328 5,633
1997 3,327 2,347 5,673
1998 3,349 2,365 5,714
1999 3,370 2,384 5,754
2000 3,392 2,403 5,795
2001 3,414 2,421 5,835
2002 3,435 2,440 5,876
2003 3,457 2,459 5,916
2004 3,479 2,478 5,956
2005 3,501 2,496 5,997
2006 3,522 2,515 6,037
2007 3,544 2,534 6,078
2008 3,566 2,552 6,118
2009 3,588 2,571 6,159
2010 3,609 2,590 6,199
Adjusted for 1994 Observed Values
with Original ISW Projection Method
Other Act 641 Wastes
Volume Reduction Residue Details
CDD 1SW Total
(Gateyards) (Gateyards) (Gateyards)
0 0 0
786 1,030 1,816
1,592 2,102 3,693
2,417 3,214 5,631
3,262 4,365 7,626
3,283 4,355 7,638
3,305 4,345 7,650
3,327 4,336 7,663
3,349 4,328 7,676
3,370 4,320 7,690
3,392 4,312 7,704
3,414 4,305 7,719
3,435 4,298 7,734
3,457 4,292 7,749
3,479 4,286 7,765
3,501 4,280 7,781
3,522 4,275 7,798
3,544 4,270 7,815
3,566 4,266 7,832
3,588 4,262 7,849
3,609 4,258 7,867
Straight-line
Generalized Volume
Reduction Assumptions
msw 15.00%
COD 15.00%
isw 15.00%
94 Yard Waste Adjust. 3.29%
94 YVV SR & R Adjust. 1.04%
96 & Beyond YW Adjust. 7.32%
96 & Beyond YW SR & R Adjust. 1.83%
03/22/95
12:33
RJS, PE
Project1.W1(4
Revised based on Observed 94 Emp & Pop
Plus CDD & ISW = 20% of Total (Statewide)
03/22/95
12:35
RJS, PE
Projectl.WK4
.ight-line
Generalized Volume
Reduction Assumptions
msw 15.00%
COD 15.00%
isw 15.00%
94 Yard Waste Adjust. 3.29%
94 YW SR & R Adjust. 1.04%
96 & Beyond YVV Adjust. 7.32%
96 & Beyond YIN SR & R Adjust. 1.83%
1990 Plan Update Values (1994 Amendment) Adjusted for 1994 Observed Values •
Annual Annual Annual
Daily Gateyards at Zero Volume Reduction Recycle & Compost Gateyards Bankyards
Year MSW Ash CDD ISW Total Annual Annual Residue VVith Volume VVith Volume
(Less VVTE) Total Bankyards Gateyards Reduction Reduction
1990 11,196 13 756 511 12,477 4,553,987 2,372,696 0 4,553,987 2,372,696
1991 11,465 13 766 523 12,767 4,659,805 2,427,710 7,150 4,490,383 2,339,689
1992 11,734 13 775 535 13,057 4,765,650 2,482,751 14,614 4,419,181 2,302,748
1993 12,003 13 785 546 13,347 4,871,495 2,537,791 22,391 4,340,353 2,261,847
1994 12,272 13 794 558 13,637 4,977,340 2,592,831 28,868 4,284,563 2,232,318
1995 12,375 13 800 562 13,750 5,018,607 2,614,297 33,712 4,214,693 2,198,100
1996 12,478 13 805 567 13,863 5,059,875 2,635,762 38,632 4,143,085 2,163,012
1997 12,581 13 810 571 13,976 . 5,101,143 2,657,227 38,944 4,176,928 2,180,649
1998 12,684 13 815 576 14,089 5,142,410 2,678,692 39,256 4,210,771 2,198,287
1999 12,788 13 821 581 14,202 5,183,678 2,700,157 39,568 4,244,614 2,215,925
2000 12,891 13 826 585 14,315 5,224,945 2,721,623 39,880 4,278,458 2,233,562
2001 12,994 13 831 590 14,428 5,266,213 2,743,088 40,191 4,312,301 2,251,200 ..
2002 13,097 13 837 594 14,541 5,307,481 2,764,553 40,503 4,346,144 2,268,837
2003 13,200 13 842 599 14,654 5,348,748 2,786,018 40,815 4,379,987 2,286,475 -
2004 13,304 13 847 603 14,767 5,390,016 2,807,483 41,127 4,413,830 2,304,112
2005 13,407 13 853 608 14,880 5,431,283 2,828,949 41,438 4,447,673 2,321,750 -
2006 13,510 13 858 612 14,993 5,472,551 2,850,414 41,750 4,481,516 2,339,388
2007 13,613 13 863 617 15,106 5,513,819 2,871,879 42,062 4,515,359 2,357,025
2008 13,716 13 868 622 15,219 5,555,086 2,893,344 42,374 4,549,202 2,374,663
2009 13,820 13 874 626 15,332 5,596,354 2,914,809 42,686 4,583,045 2,392,300
2010 13,923 13 879 631 15,446 5,637,621 2,936,275 42,997 4,616,888 2,409,938
s
• 90 Plan Update - Modified
• 94 Observed - Modified
A 94 Alternate - Modified Annual Bankyards Required 0
2
3
1
• • I,•
Comparing Landfill Bankyard Estimates
Oakland County, Michigan
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
- Year -
Bankyard Requirements Modified for Michigan's 1995 Yard Waste Banl
03/22/95
12:49
RJS. PE z
t.)
•npa
Cullumlative Bank. - 1194and Beyond Annual Bankyard Requirements
Adjusted to Adjusted to
Modified for New Population COD & ISW Modified for New Population CDD & ISW
94 Plan Yard Waste & Employment Assumptions 94 Plan Yard Waste & Employment Assumptions
Year Amendment Ban Data Adjusted Amendment Ban Data Adjusted
1990 2,582,476 2,582,476 2,544,620 2,372,696 1990
1991 2,514,180 2,514,180 b2,508,920 2,339.689 1991
1992 2,444,017 2,444,017 2,468,866 2,302,748 1992
1993 2,371,989 2,371,989 2,424,483 2,261,847 1993
1994 2,297,496 100% 2,311,971 100.63% 2,391,126 104.08% 2,232,318 97.16% 2,297,496 100% 2,311,971 100.63% 2,391,126 104.08% 2,232,318 97.16% 1994
1995 4,617,180 4,596,373 4,745,832 4,430,418 2,319,684 2,284,402 • 2,354,707 2,198,100 1995
1996 6,959,051 100% 6,852,116 98.46% 7,063,291 101.50% 6,593,430 94.75% 2,341,872 100% 2,255,743 96.32% 2,317,459 98.96% 2,163,012 92.36% 1996
1997 9,323,111 9,129,115 9,396,268 8,774,079 2,364,059 2,277,000 2,332,976 2,180,649 1997
1998 11,709,358 11,427,372 11,744,799 10,972,366 2,386,247 2,298,257 2,348,531 2,198,287 1998
1999 14,117,793 13,746,886 14,108,922 13,188,291 2,408,435 2,319,514 2,364,122 2,215,925 1999
2000 16,548,415 100% 16,087,657 97.22% 16,488,670 99.64% 15,421,853 93.19% 2,430,623 100% 2,340,771 96.30% 2,379,748 97.91% 2,233,562 91.89% 2000
2001 19,001,226 18,449,685 18,884,076 17,673,052 2,452,810 2,362,028 2,395,406 2,251,200 2001
2002 21,476,224 20,832,969 21,295,173 19,941,890 2,474,998 2,383,285 2,411,097 2,268,837 2002
2003 23,973,410 23,237,511 23,721,990 22,228,364 2,497,186 2,404,542 2,426,817 2,286,475 2003
2004 26,492,784 25,663,310 26,164,557 24,532,477 2,519,374 2,425,799 2,442,567 2,304,112 2004
2005 29,034,345 100% 28,110,366 96.82% 28,622,902 98.58% 26,854,227 92.49% 2,541,561 100% 2,447,056 96.28% 2,458,345 96.73% 2,321,750 91.35% 2005
2006 31,598,094 30,578,679 31,097,052 29,193,614 2,563,749 2,468,313 2,474,150 2,339,388 2006
2007 34,184,031 33,068,249 33,587,033 31,550,639 2,585,937 2,489,570 2,489,980 2,357,025 2007
2008 36,792,156 35,579,076 36,092,869 33,925,302 2,608,125 2,510,827 2,505,836 2,374,663 2008
2009 39,422,469 38,111,160 38,614,585 36,317,603 2,630,313 2,532,084 2,521,716 2,392,300 2009
2010 42,074,969 100% 40,664,501 96.65% 41,152,203 97.81% 38,727,540 92.04% 2,652,500 100% 2,553,341 96.26% 2,537,618 95.67% 2,409,938 90.86% 2010
Annual Gateyard Requirement&
(for export to Gtyds6.wk4)
Adjusted to
Modified for New Population COD & ISW
94 Plan Yard Waste & Employment Assumptions
Year Amendment Ban Data _ Adjusted
Generalized Volume
Reduction Assumotions 1990 4,738,944 4,738,944 4,725,910 4,553,987 1990
/.4SW 15.00% 1991 4,615,839 4,615,839 4,659,614 4,490,383 1991
CDD 15.00% 1992 4,489,082 4,489,082 4,585,299 4,419,181 1992
ISW 15.00% 1993 4,358,674 4,358,674 4,502,989 4,340,353 1993
94 Yard VVaste Adjust. 3.29% 1994 4,201,078 100% 4,231,551 100.73% 4,443,370 105.77% 4,284,563 101.99% 1994
94 YW SR & R Adjust. 1.04% 1995 4,244,190 4,170,804 4,371,300 4,214,693 1995
96 & Beyond YW Adjust. 7.32% 1996 4,287,303 100% 4,107,781 95.81% 4,297,533 100.24% 4,143,085 96.64% 1996
96 & Beyond YW SR & R Adjust. 1.83% 1997 4,330,415 4,148,954 4.329,255 4,176,928 1997
1998 4,373,528 4,190,126 4,361,016 4,210,771 1998
1999 4,416,641 4,231,299 4,392,812 4,244,614 1999
Composting Residue 5.00% 2000 4,459,753 100% 4,272,472 95.80% 4,424,643 99.21% 4,278,458 95.93% 2000
MSW Recyding Residue 5.00% 2001 4,502,866 4,313,644 4,456,507 4,312,301 2001
COD Recycling Residue 7.50% 2002 4,545,978 4,354.817 4,488,403 4,346,144 2002
ISW Recycling Residue 7.50% 2003 4,589,091 4,395,989 4,520,329 4,379,987 2003
2004 4,632,204 4,437,162 4,552,285 4,413,830 2004
2005 4,675,316 100% 4,478,335 95.79% 4,584,268 98.05% 4,447,673 95.13% 2005
2006 4,718,429 4,519.507 4,616,278 4,481,516 2006
2007 4,761,541 4,560,680 4,648,314 4,515,359 2007
2008 4,804,654 4,601,853 4,680,375 4,549,202 2008
2009 4,847,767 4,643,025 4,712,461 4,583,045 2009
2010 4,890,879 100% 4,684,198 95.77% 4,744,569 97.01% 4,616,888 94.40% 2010
03/22/95
12:36
Cl) RJS, PE
Projectt WK4
Year
Year
0
r I ) n•
References
References
1. Amendments to the 1990 Solid Waste Management Plan Update, Oakland County,
Michigan. Basic Solid Waste Database, Inter-County Flow Arrangements,
Demonstration of Available Disposal Capacity, Interim Siting Mechanism,
Contingency Plan, and Designation of Additional Disposal Capacity. As
adopted by the Board of Commissioners, June 9, 1994.
2. Employment Estimates: Oakland County staff report to MDNR (Smith to
Phillips) dated December 13, 1994 as revised on January 5, 1995.
3. Population Estimates: Oakland County staff report to MDNR (Smith to
Phillips) dated January 5, 1995.
4. "The Role of Recycling in Integrated Solid Waste Management to the Year
2000" was prepared for Keep America Beautiful, Inc. and is dated September,
1994. Prepared by Franklin Associates, Ltd.
5. "Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1994
Update" was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division, Office of Solid Waste and is
dated November 15, 1994. Prepared by Franklin Associates, Ltd.
References - Page 1
rIP n
0
Resolution #95140 May 11, 1995
Moved by Palmer supported by Powers the resolution be adopted.
AYES: Pernick, Powers, Quarles, Schmid, Taub, Amos, Crake, Devine,
Dingeldey, Douglas, Garfield, Holbert, Huntoon, Jacobs, Jensen, Johnson, Kaczmar,
Kingzett, McPherson, Obrecht, Palmer. (21)
NAYS: None. (0)
A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the resolution was adopted.
I HEREBY
L. Brooks P
or ,,.., At4
.., -
...........
: • :mom County Executive
(r7GONG RESOLUTION
5-//
Date
STATE OF MICHIGAN)
COUNTY OF OAKLAND)
I, Lynn D. Allen, Clerk of the County of Oakland, do hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution is a true and accurate copy of a resolution adopted by the
Oakland County Board of Commissioners on May 11, 1995 with the original record
thereof now remaining in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the
County of Oakland at Pontiac, Michigan this 11th daykolay 1 .
. Allen, County Clerk